TERRICK M. CROSBY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 accepted jurisdiction in a case involving whether a defendant could be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the same course of conduct. The Court granted the petition, quashed the Second District's affirmance of the conviction dismissal, and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision in Williams v. State, which established that such dual convictions violate Florida law.
The Court held that convictions for both dealing in stolen property and grand theft arising from the same conduct violate section 812.025, Florida Statutes, and that the trial court erred in denying jury instructions and precluding defense arguments regarding the alternative nature of these offenses.
[1] Convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft arising from the same scheme or course of conduct violate section 812.025, Florida Statutes.
[2] A trial court errs in denying a defendant's request for a jury instruction based on section 812.025, Florida Statutes, when the defendant is charged with both dealing in…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 defendant's convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft violated section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2008); that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for a jury instruction modeled after that section; and that the trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from arguing during closing arguments that the jury could find the defendant guilty of either offense”
Establishes the core holding that dual convictions for these offenses violate Florida law and identifies the trial court's legal errors
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrosby was charged with both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. The trial court dismissed …
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.
We have for review Crosby v. State, 125 So.3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), in which the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a conviction of grand theft when the defendant was charged with both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. The Second District certified conflict with Kiss v. State, 42 So.3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), and certified the same questions it had certified in Williams v. State, 66 So.3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), quashed, 121 So.3d 524 (Fla.2013). At the time that the Second District issued its decision below, Williams was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Williams v. State, 121 So.3d 524 (Fla.2013). In Williams, we held that the defendant’s convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft violated section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2008); that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request for a jury instruction modeled after that section; and that the trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from arguing during closing arguments that the jury could find the defendant guilty of either offense. Id. at 534. We concluded that the errors were harmful and quashed the Second District’s decision. Id. We then issued an order in the instant case directing Respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the Second District’s decision below, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in. Williams. Respondent filed a response conceding that it was “unable to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction and remand for reconsideration in light of its opinion in Williams.” Petitioner agreed.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash the district court’s decision in Crosby, and remand this case to the Second District with instruction that the case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s decision in Williams.
It is so ordered.
*378POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kiss v. State, 42 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Williams v. State, 66 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013)
- Terrick M. Crosby v. State, 125 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)