Dubuisson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dubuisson v. State

762 So. 2d 1059, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9710, 2000 WL 1055785

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-2018

StatusPublished

This text of 762 So. 2d 1059 (Dubuisson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dubuisson v. State, 762 So. 2d 1059, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9710, 2000 WL 1055785 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Renaud Dubuisson (“defendant”), appeals his convictions for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property finding no error in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for mistrial. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

However, as properly conceded by the State, the record indicates, the trial court inadvertently entered a separate written judgment of conviction for grand theft. During the sentencing hearing, the State correctly advised the trial court that the defendant could not be convicted for both grand theft and dealing in the same stolen property. See Newland v. State, 739 So.2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Burrell v. State, 601 So.2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court did not impose a sentence on the grand theft count, but a review of the record reveals the judgment for the conviction still stands. Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s conviction on the grand theft count with instructions to vacate the inadvertently entered judgment. See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (1999).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part with instructions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Renaud Dubuisson (“defendant”), appeals his convictions for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property finding no error in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for mistrial. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

However, as properly conceded by the State, the record indicates, the trial court inadvertently entered a separate written judgment of conviction for grand theft. During the sentencing hearing, the State correctly advised the trial court that the defendant could not be convicted for both grand theft and dealing in the same stolen property. See Newland v. State, 739 So.2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Burrell v. State, 601 So.2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court did not impose a sentence on the grand theft count, but a review of the record reveals the judgment for the conviction still stands. Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s conviction on the grand theft count with instructions to vacate the inadvertently entered judgment. See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (1999).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 So. 2d 1059, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9710, 2000 WL 1055785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubuisson-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack