SAMEER MUHAMMAD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 reversed convictions for grand theft as lesser included offenses of organized fraud, holding that double jeopardy principles preclude dual convictions based on the same conduct and that the State cannot nolle pros a charge after jeopardy attaches.
Double jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud based on the same conduct, requiring that the lesser offense conviction be set aside.
[1] Double jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud when based on the same conduct, requiring that the lesser included offense convic…
[2] The State lacks authority to nolle pros a charge after jeopardy has attached and a jury has been sworn, rendering such nolle prosequi a nullity.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“double jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud based upon the same conduct”
Citing Pizzo v. State for the principle that dual convictions are impermissible when based on the same conduct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSameer Muhammad was convicted by jury of organized scheme to defraud $50,000 or more and four counts of grand theft. The State then elected to nolle p…
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 Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
After the defendant, Sameer Muhammad, was found by a jury guilty of organized scheme to defraud $50,000 or more and four counts of grand theft, the State elected to have the defendant adjudicated and sentenced to the four counts of grand theft and nolle pressed his conviction of organized fraud to comply with double jeopardy principles. As stated in Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Fla.2006), “double jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud based upon the same conduct.” When dual convictions are impermissible, the conviction for the lesser crime should be set aside. Id. In this case, grand theft is a lesser offense of organized fraud. See id. at 1207. Thus, the defendant’s four convictions of grand theft should have been set aside and the trial court should have adjudicated and sentenced the defendant on the organized fraud conviction. The State’s election to nolle pros the defendant’s organized fraud conviction after the jury returned a verdict is a nullity and shall have no effect upon remand. See Flores v. State, 958 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The State has no power to nolle pros a charge after jeopardy has attached. Therefore, the State has no authority to nolle pros a charge after a jury is sworn.”).
We find no merit on any of the other issues raised in this appeal.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part with directions to vacate the defendant’s convictions for the lesser included offenses of grand theft and to sentence the defendant on the organized fraud conviction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ibes Gomez v. State, 220 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ave been held to violate double jeopardy. See Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 2006) (holding that “double jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud based upon the same conduct”); Muhammad v. State, 99 So. 3d 964, 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (relying on Pizzo and holding that double jeopardy principles prohibit convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud). The State, however, argues that the defendant’s dual convictions may be permissible pursuant to an…
-
Manata v. State, 226 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…for grand. theft and to resentence her for the organized scheme to defraud conviction. The Staté’s nolle prosse of the appellant’s conviction for organized scheme to, dfefraud is a nullity, and shall have ho effect on remand. See Muhammad v. State, 99 So. 3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Flores v. State, 958 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The State has no power to nolle pros a charge after jeopardy has attached. Therefore,' the State has no authority to nolle pros a charge after a jury is sworn.”). ROB…
-
Aldacosta v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006)
- Flores v. State, 958 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)