NORBERTO CABAN RAMIREZ
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 and dealing in stolen property when the crimes arise from one scheme or course of conduct, and stealing property and pawning it two hours later constitutes a single scheme.
[1] Under Florida Statute § 812.025, a defendant cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property when the crimes arise from a single scheme or course o…
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 defendant may be charged with both theft and dealing in stolen property, but cannot be found guilty of both crimes when they are in connection with one scheme or course of conduct”
Court citing Blackmon v. State, 121 So. 3d 535, 541 (Fla. 2013)
Appellant stole a television and pawned it approximately two hours later. The jury convicted him of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property, a…
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
NORBERTO CABAN RAMIREZ,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-3458
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed January 3, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Emerson R. Thompson, Jr., Senior Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca
Rock Mcguigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Norberto Ramirez (“Appellant”) appeals his convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property arguing that his sentence violates section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2018). We agree with Appellant and reverse. The State charged Appellant with three crimes stemming from the theft of a television. At trial, the State presented evidence showing that Appellant stole a television
and pawned it approximately two hours later. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty of grand theft and dealing in stolen property, and the trial court sentenced him on both counts over his objection. This appeal follows. Section 812.025 unambiguously provides that, while an information may charge “theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, . . . the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.” Therefore, “a defendant may be charged with both theft and dealing in stolen property, but cannot be found guilty of both crimes” when they are in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. Blackmon v. State, 121 So. 3d 535, 541 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Goddard v. State, 458 So. 2d 230, 233 (Fla. 1984)). Here, Appellant stole a television and pawned it two hours later, and we hold that these actions constituted one scheme or course of conduct for the purposes of section 812.025. Accordingly, Appellant’s dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft are improper, and we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence for the lesser offense of grand theft. See Blocker v. State, 247 So. 3d 649, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. HARRIS, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blackmon v. State, 121 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2013)
- Vinson T. Blocker v. State, 247 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)