TERRY SYKES, 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.
A defendant cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when both offenses arise from the same course of conduct.
[1] A defendant may not be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when both offenses arise from the same course of conduct.
[2] A brief separation in time between a theft and the subsequent dealing in stolen property does not, without more, support separate convictions for the same course of condu…
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 intelligenceTerry Sykes stole three pieces of jewelry while working for a moving company. He pawned two pieces, and the third was never recovered. He was convicte…
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 Same Course Of Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
Terry Sykes appeals his judgment and sentences for second-degree grand theft, dealing in stolen property, and false verification of ownership to a pawnbroker. We reject without further comment his assertion that the prosecutor tainted his trial by making improper closing arguments. But we agree with Sykes’ contention that he should not have been adjudicated guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. Because both of those charged offenses stemmed from the same-course of conduct, we reverse.
A defendant may not be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when they arise from the same scheme or' course of conduct. § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2013). The evidence adduced at trial established that Sykes worked for a moving company. Sykes stole three pieces of jewelry while' moving a client. ' Police discovered that Sykes and his wife pawned two pieces of the jewelry. The third piece of jewelry was never recovered.
Without some evidence evincing a meaningful disruption, a four-day separation between a theft and dealing in stolen property will not support two convictions for the same course of conduct. See Washington v. State, 130 So.3d 735, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), quashed on other grounds, 163 So.3d 516 (Fla.2015). We reject the State’s argument that Sykes’ conviction for dealing in stolen property can be premised on the two pawned pieces and that the grand theft conviction may be separately premised on the third missing piece. As charged and proved by the State, all three pieces were taken in the same theft. The fact that only two of the pieces were then pawned does not alter the fact that the theft and the dealing in stolen property arose from the same course of conduct.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court exercise its discretion and vacate the adjudication of guilt for either grand theft or dealing in stolen property and resentence Sykes on *203the remaining count. See Anucinski v. State, 148 So.3d 106, 110 (Fla.2014).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
BLACK and SLEET, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradshaw v. State, 263 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…rd did not reflect a “‘clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances’ ‘to meaningfully disrupt the flow’ of Williams’ conduct.” Id. at 534 (quoting Rife v. State, 446 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). See also Sykes v. State, 201 So. 3d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“Without some evidence evincing a meaningful disruption, a four-day separation between a theft and dealing in stolen property will not support two convictions for the same course of conduct.”); Stallworth v. State, 538 S…
Authorities Cited
- Anucinski v. State, 148 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2014)
- Washington v. State, 130 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)