VINSON T. BLOCKER, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed most aspects of the trial court's denial of Blocker's postconviction relief motion but reversed and remanded to vacate his petit theft conviction, which was improperly imposed as a dual conviction alongside dealing in stolen property for the same course of conduct in violation of Florida law.
Dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and petit theft arising from the same scheme or course of conduct are improper under section 812.025, Florida Statutes. Where a jury is properly instructed under section 812.025 but nonetheless returns dual guilty verdicts contrary to the statute, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the conviction for the lesser offense of petit theft. Resentencing on other convictions is not warranted where the trial court found the sentences would be identical regardless of the scoresheet change.
[1] A defendant cannot be convicted of both dealing in stolen property and petit theft arising from the same scheme or course of conduct.
[2] When a jury returns dual guilty verdicts for theft and dealing in stolen property contrary to statute, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the conviction for the lesser o…
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“section 812.025, Florida Statutes, prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct”
Establishes the governing statutory prohibition at the heart of the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVinson T. Blocker was convicted of both dealing in stolen property and petit theft. The convictions arose from the same scheme or course of conduct oc…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the summary denial of all issues raised by Vinson T. Blocker ("Appellant") in his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 amended motion for postconviction relief, save one. Under the specific facts of this case, Appellant's dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and petit theft are improper. See Hall v. State , 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla. 2002) (finding that section 812.025, Florida Statutes, prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty of both theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct); Shearer v. State , 582 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (concluding that the petit theft of a camera and the dealing in stolen property of the camera committed on the same day arose out of the same course of conduct or scheme).
*650We next address the remedy. Where, as here, the jury is properly instructed under section 812.025 but nevertheless returns dual guilty verdicts for both theft and dealing in stolen property that are contrary to section 812.025, we conclude that the appropriate remedy is to vacate the conviction for the lesser offense of petit theft. Cf. Blackmon v. State , 121 So.3d 535, 548-49, 549 n.18 (Fla. 2013) (holding that where the jury was not properly instructed under section 812.025 but the defendant failed to request a proper instruction or to otherwise preserve the error for appellate review and the jury returns dual guilty verdicts for both theft and dealing in stolen property that are contrary to section 812.025, the proper remedy is vacating the conviction for the lesser offense).
Lastly, based upon the trial court's findings in the denial order that it would have imposed the same sentences for Appellant's other convictions regardless of the "negligible" change in the scoresheet resulting if the petit theft conviction were vacated, we deny Appellant's request to be resentenced on his other convictions.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to vacate Appellant's conviction and sentence for petit theft. We affirm the postconviction court's order in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions.
PALMER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norberto Caban Ramirez v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
-
Wright v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 826 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2002)
- Blackmon v. State, 121 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2013)
- Shearer v. State, 582 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)