DANIEL ARROYO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 of a motor vehicle and grand theft of its contents when there is a single act of taking with no geographic or temporal separation between the takings.
[1] Double jeopardy principles preclude conviction for both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of its contents when there is a single act of taking with no geogra…
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“A separate crime occurs only when there are separate distinct acts of seizing the property of another.”
Court citing Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798, 799 (Fla. 1992) to establish the standard for when multiple theft convictions are permissible.
Arroyo was convicted of multiple counts of burglary and grand theft. At trial, the victim testified that the center console of his truck, where a fire…
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 Grand Theft Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Arroyo challenges his judgment and sentences for several counts of burglary and grand theft. 1 Arroyo argues, and the State appropriately concedes, that his conviction for grand theft of a firearm should be reversed based on double jeopardy in light of his separate conviction for grand theft of a motor vehicle. 2 At
1
This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.
2
Although this issue was not raised below, a violation of double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal. Rubio v. State, 233 So. 3d 482, 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). trial, the victim testified that the center console of the truck where his gun was stored had been rummaged through, but the gun had not been removed. Thus, as the State acknowledges, there was no geographic or temporal separation between the taking of the truck and the taking of the gun. See Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798, 799 (Fla. 1992) (“A separate crime occurs only when there are separate distinct acts of seizing the property of another.”); Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“The State is precluded by double jeopardy principles from obtaining convictions on both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the contents when ‘there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking.’” (quoting Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002))). Accordingly, Arroyo’s conviction for grand theft of a firearm must be vacated. 3 AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
STARGEL, NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and J. Wade Stidham, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 3
We affirm the remainder of Arroyo’s convictions without further comment.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1992)
- Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Moises Rubio v. State, 233 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)