PAUL FRANCOIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Court affirmed grand theft and organized scheme to defraud convictions on most issues but reversed grand theft convictions as lesser-included offenses violating double jeopardy, remanding for resentencing on organized scheme to defraud alone.
Grand theft convictions must be vacated when a defendant is also convicted of organized scheme to defraud because grand theft is a lesser-included offense and dual conviction violates double jeopardy.
[1] Grand theft is a lesser-included offense of organized scheme to defraud, and convicting a defendant of both crimes constitutes a double jeopardy violation requiring vacat…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“All the elements of the crime of theft are included within the offense of organized fraud. Therefore, a defendant cannot be convicted of both crimes without a double jeopardy violation.”
Court citing Pineda v. State to establish that grand theft elements are subsumed in organized fraud.
Paul Francois was convicted of two counts of grand theft and one count of organized scheme to defraud. He appealed challenging the trial court's denia…
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 Organized Scheme To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Paul Francois, appeals his convictions for two counts of grand theft and one count of organized scheme to defraud. Appellant raises arguments with respect to the trial court’s denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal, for a special jury instruction, and for a mistrial. We find no error and affirm these issues without further discussion.
Appellant also argues that the grand theft convictions violate double jeopardy because grand theft is a lesser-included offense of organized scheme to defraud. We agree, and we therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s grand theft convictions, and resen-tence him solely on his organized scheme to defraud conviction. See. Pineda v. State, 3 So.3d 1289, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“All the elements of the crime of theft are included within the offense of organized fraud. . Therefore, a defendant *548cannot be convicted of both crimes without a double jeopardy violation.”) (citation omitted); see also Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203, 1207 (Fla.2006) (“Because organized fraud includes all of the elements of grand theft as well as an additional element, grand theft is a lesser offense of organized fraud.”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
MAY, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006)
- Acosta v. State, 3 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Pineda v. State, 3 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)