EVERLY SCOTT LIPPWE, 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.
Everly Scott Lippwe was convicted of two counts of organized trafficking in stolen property, but the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under Goddard v. State, an individual who directly participates in stealing and selling only their own stolen goods cannot be convicted of 'organizing' trafficking under section 812.019(2), but may only be convicted of the lesser included offense of trafficking under section 812.019(1).
A defendant who directly participates in the theft and sale of only his own stolen goods is subject to theft and trafficking charges under sections 812.014 and 812.019(1), but may not be charged with 'organizing' under section 812.019(2). The trial court fundamentally erred in convicting appellant of organized trafficking.
[1] A defendant may not be charged with "organizing" under section 812.019(2), Florida Statutes, when the evidence shows the defendant directly participated in the theft and…
[2] An individual who steals and traffics in only their own stolen goods is subject to theft and trafficking charges under sections 812.014 and 812.019(1), Florida Statutes,…
Previewing 2 of 6 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]n individual who steals and traffics in only his own stolen goods is subject to theft and trafficking charges under sections 812.014 and 812.019(1), but may not be charged with 'organizing' under section 812.019(2).”
Establishes the legal standard from Goddard v. State that prohibits conviction for organizing trafficking when the defendant directly participated in theft and sale of only his own stolen goods
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Lippwe was convicted of two counts of organized trafficking pursuant to section 812.019(2), Florida Statutes (2011). The evidence showed tha…
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 Discretionary Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to Goddard v. State, 458 So.2d 230 (Fla.1984), the trial court fundamentally erred in convicting appellant of two counts of organized trafficking pursuant to section 812.019(2), Florida Statutes (2011), when the evidence showed that appellant directly participated in the theft and sale of the same stolen property. “[A]n individual who steals and traffics in only his own stolen goods is subject to theft and trafficking charges under sections 812.014 and 812.019(1), but may not be charged with ‘organizing’ under section 812.019(2).” Goddard, 458 So.2d at 234. The judgment and sentence is reversed and remanded as to the two counts on appeal for imposition of the lesser included offense of trafficking pursuant to section 812.019(1), and for resentencing. See id. at 234.
On remand, the trial court will have an opportunity to re-impose costs and fees. We remind the trial court that fines imposed pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2011), are discretionary and must be separately and orally pronounced at sentencing. See Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We also point out that “investigative fees” that are not “costs for the state attorney” are imposed pursuant to subsection 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2011), not subsection (8), and must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency. Finally, we point out that section 28.37(2), Florida Statutes (2011), does not itself authorize the imposition of a 10% fee. Rather, it directs that 10% of any fines imposed be directed to the Public Records Modernization Trust Fund. Any confusion could be remedied if the clerk ensured that amounts directed to the fund are properly labeled as being imposed “pursuant to” the appropriate statute, in this case, section 775.083.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
BENTON and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…was error to impose it without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing. See Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4, 4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Baker v. State, 86 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). See also Lippwe v. State, 152 So. 3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes “must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency”). We reverse the sheriffs investigative cost. On remand, the trial court may not rei…
-
Thomas v. State, 190 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…earing. Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing the $100 sheriffs investigative cost “without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing”); Lippwe v. State, 152 So. 3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes,, “must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency”); Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4, 4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that “the tria…
-
Bond v. State, 383 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…IAM. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all respects but one. We reverse the award of $50 for investigative costs because there was no showing that the costs were “requested on the record” by the Vero Beach Police Department. Lippwe v. State, 152 So. 3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Appellant did not “affirmatively agree[]” to pay the requested amount. Icon v. State, 322 So. 3d 117, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). We reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the $50 investigative cost with instructi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Goddard v. State, 458 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1984)