SHAYLA LEWIS
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.
Shayla Lewis appealed her convictions for executing a scheme to defraud a financial institution, unlawful possession of a stolen credit card, fraudulent use of a credit card, grand theft, and criminal use of personal identification information. The court affirmed most convictions but reversed the grand theft conviction as duplicative under double jeopardy principles.
The court held that convictions for scheming to defraud and grand theft based on the same underlying conduct violate double jeopardy principles. The grand theft conviction was reversed as the lesser offense, while the scheming to defraud conviction was affirmed. The remaining convictions for unlawful possession of a stolen credit card, fraudulent use of a credit card, and criminal use of personal identification information were also affirmed.
[1] Double jeopardy principles preclude conviction for both grand theft and scheme to defraud based on the same underlying conduct, and when both convictions arise from ident…
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“[D]ouble jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud based upon the same conduct.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that bars dual convictions for grand theft and scheming to defraud when based on identical conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShayla Lewis executed a scheme involving fraudulent use of credit cards and personal identification information against a financial institution. The s…
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 Criminal Use Of Personal Identification Information cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Shayla Lewis appeals from her judgment and sentences for executing a scheme to defraud on a financial institution, unlawful possession of a stolen credit card,
fraudulent use of a credit card ($100 or more), grand theft ($300 or more), and criminal use of personal identification information. We affirm Lewis's convictions with the exception of her conviction for grand theft.
Lewis argues, correctly, that this court has held that convictions for scheming to defraud and grand theft based on the same underlying conduct violate double jeopardy principles. See Henry v. State, 64 So. 3d 181, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ("[D]ouble jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud based upon the same conduct." (quoting Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 2006))). Therefore, we strike the conviction for grand theft, which is the lesser offense. See id. ("[B]ecause organized fraud includes all of the elements of grand theft as well as an additional element, grand theft is a lesser offense of organized fraud." (citing Pizzo, 945 So. 2d at 1207)); see also Riley v. State, 854 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2003) (holding that the defendant could not be convicted of illegally obtaining property through the use of a forged credit card and grand theft arising out of the same transaction because fraudulent use of a credit card and grand theft were degrees of the same offense).
We find no merit in Lewis's remaining points on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions for scheming to defraud, unlawful possession of a stolen credit card, fraudulent use of a credit card, and criminal use of personal identification information. We reverse the conviction for grand theft and remand for resentencing pursuant to a corrected scoresheet.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
SLEET and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006)
- Henry v. State, 64 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Riley v. State, 854 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)