STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
BRIAN D. KABLITZ, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that found fundamental error when a trial court failed to instruct the jury that a defendant could not be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the same scheme. The Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision based on its controlling ruling in Blackmon v. State, holding that such an omission, while erroneous, does not constitute fundamental error requiring a new trial.
The court held that while the trial court's failure to give such an instruction is error, it is not fundamental error. Therefore, reversal and a new trial are not required.
[1] A conviction for both theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the same scheme or course of conduct constitutes fundamental error requiring a new trial.
[2] A trial court's failure to instruct the jury that a defendant cannot be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court erred, it was not fundamental error such that we would require a new trial”
Establishes the holding that while the trial court's failure to instruct the jury is error, it does not constitute fundamental error requiring reversal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKablitz was convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with the same scheme or course of conduct. The trial court failed to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Kablitz v. State, 134 So.3d 969, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2358 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 26, 2011), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal found it fundamental error when the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. The Fourth District certified conflict with Blackmon v. State, 58 So.3d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), approved, 121 So.3d 535 (Fla.2013). At the time that the Fourth District issued its decision below, Blackmon was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We stayed the proceedings in this case pending disposition of Blackmon v. State, 121 So.3d 535 (Fla.2013), in which we ultimately affirmed the First District’s ruling that when a defendant is convicted of both dealing in stolen property and theft in connection with the same scheme or course of conduct, though “the trial court erred, it was not fundamental error such that we would require a new trial.” Id. at 549. We then issued an order in the instant case directing Respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the Fourth District’s decision in Kablitz, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Blackmon. Respondent filed a response conceding that this Court’s decision in Blackmon was controlling. Petitioner did not reply.
Upon consideration of Respondent’s response, we grant the petition for review, quash the district court’s decision in Ka-blitz, and remand this case to the Fourth District with instructions that the case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s decision in Blackmon.
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025)
-
Lynch v. State, 254 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 2018)…vation in this case would have nonetheless outweighed the mitigation. Id. at 70-71. Because this Court previously extensively analyzed the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness, Lynch's present claim is procedurally barred. See Hendrix v. State , 136 So. 3d 1122, 1125 (Fla. 2014) ("Claims raised and rejected in prior postconviction proceedings are procedurally barred from being relitigated in a successive motion." (citing Van Poyck v. State , 116 So. 3d 347, 362 (Fla. 2013) ) ); see also Reed v. State , 116…
-
Reynolds v. State, 373 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2023)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blackmon v. State, 121 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2013)
- State v. Huby, 58 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Blackmon v. State, 58 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Kablitz v. State, 134 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)