MICHAEL ANTHONY BENNETT, 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.
Michael Anthony Bennett appealed his convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft. The court affirmed the dealing in stolen property conviction but reversed the grand theft conviction because dual convictions for these offenses violated Florida law when committed as part of a single scheme or course of conduct.
Dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft violate section 812.025 when the offenses were committed in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. Bennett's conviction for dealing in stolen property is affirmed, but his conviction for grand theft is reversed.
[1] Dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and theft are prohibited when the offenses are committed in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.
[2] A conviction for grand theft may be reversed when it arises from the same scheme or course of conduct as a conviction for dealing in stolen property.
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“Appellant correctly argues, and the State concedes, that Appellant's convictions violate section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2015), which prohibits dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and theft when the offenses were committed in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.”
Establishes the core legal principle that dual convictions for these offenses are prohibited when part of a single scheme
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBennett was convicted of both dealing in stolen property and grand theft. The stolen items appear to have been stolen and then dealt with (sold or oth…
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Michael Anthony Bennett, appeals his convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft and raises three issues, only one of which merits discussion and reversal. Appellant correctly argues, and the State concedes, that Appellant’s convictions violate section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2015), which prohibits dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and theft when the offenses were committed in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. See Adoye v. State, 224 So.3d 887, 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (agreeing with the appellant and the State’s concession of error that the appellant’s dual convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property violated double jeopardy because both offenses were committed during a single, ongoing scheme and reversing and remanding for the trial court to vacate the lesser grand theft conviction); see also Blackmon v. State, 121 So.3d 535, 548 (Fla. 2013) (noting that the stolen items at issue were sold to a scrap yard the day after the *1290items were stolen and holding that the trial court erred in adjudicating the appellant guilty of both dealing in stolen property and theft where the offenses were committed in connection with one scheme or course of conduct); Williams v. State, 121 So.3d 524, 533 (Fla. 2013) (noting that the appellant sold a stolen video game system and games to a pawn shop the >day after the theft and concluding that the dealing in stolen property and grand theft offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct); Wilson v. State, 884 So.2d 74, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (noting that section 812.025 does not entirely foreclose the possibility of prosecution for both theft and dealing in stealing property in connection with the same stolen property, but concluding that the State .correctly conceded that the appellant could not be convicted of both offenses where he was accused of stealing and selling the property at issue on the same day and affirming the conviction for dealing in stolen property while reversing the conviction for theft).
■Accordingly, we AFFIRM Appellant’s conviction for dealing in stolen property but REVERSE his conviction for grand theft.
LEWIS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, Jj., CONCUR.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Cochran, 253 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Blackmon v. State, 121 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2013)
- Wilson v. State, 884 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013)
- Femi Adoye v. State, 224 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)