AMANDA LYNN MANATA, 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.
Amanda Manata appeals her convictions for organized scheme to defraud and grand theft after an open plea. The court affirms the organized scheme to defraud conviction but reverses and remands the grand theft conviction on double jeopardy grounds, as both convictions were based on identical allegations.
Convictions for both grand theft and scheme to defraud violate double jeopardy when based on common allegations. The grand theft conviction must be vacated, the organized scheme to defraud conviction is affirmed, and the case is remanded for resentencing on the remaining count.
[1] Convictions for both grand theft and scheme to defraud violate double jeopardy when both are based on common allegations.
[2] When convictions for grand theft and scheme to defraud are based on the same allegations, the conviction for grand theft must be vacated due to double jeopardy.
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“Convictions for both grand theft and scheme to defraud violate double jeopardy when both "are based on common allegations."”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for double jeopardy analysis in this context
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant stole money from her employer by writing checks to herself between March 20, 2014, and September 4, 2014. She was convicted of both orga…
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
The appellant appeals her convictions for one count of organized scheme to defraud and one count of grand theft, entered after an open plea to the charges. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for organized scheme to defraud, but reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate the appellant’s conviction for grand theft and to resentence the appellant on the organized scheme to defraud conviction.
Convictions for both grand theft and scheme to defraud violate double jeopardy when both “are based on common allegations.” Saddler v. State, 921 So.2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, both crimes were based on the same allegations that the appellant stole money from her employer by writing checks to herself between March 20, 2014, and September 4, 2014. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate the appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft, see Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203, 1207 (Fla.2006) (holding that grand theft was a lesser offense of organized fraud, for double jeopardy purposes, requiring reversal of grand theft convictions), and to resen-tence the appellant on the remaining organized scheme to defraud count. See Anucinski v. State, 148 So.3d 106 (Fla.2014) (holding that appropriate remedy for defendant improperly convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property is to remand for court to vacate one of the sentences and to resentence the defendant on the remaining count); Gonzalez v. State, 123 So.3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds and remanding for cir*974cuit court to resentence the defendant on the remaining count).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED AND REMANDED in part, for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manata v. State, 226 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…lant was convicted of organized scheme to defraud and grand theft. On appeal, this Court held that her convictions for both crimes violate double jeopardy principles, and ordered the lower court to vacate the grand theft conviction. Manata v. State, 213 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We also affirmed the conviction for organized scheme to defraud, but remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing on that count. Id. Instead, at the State’s request the trial court resentenced the appellant on the grand thef…
Authorities Cited
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006)
- Anucinski v. State, 148 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2014)
- Saddler v. State, 921 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Gonzalez v. State, 123 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)