Dunkle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunkle v. State

841 So. 2d 584, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4142, 2003 WL 1568882

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-3018

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 841 So. 2d 584 (Dunkle 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

Dunkle v. State, 841 So. 2d 584, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4142, 2003 WL 1568882 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

David P. Dunkle appeals his judgments and sentences for grand theft and dealing in stolen property. The State concedes error. In Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.2002), the Florida Supreme Court held that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2000), 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 pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere.” Here, in case number CF00-07081A-XX, the trial court erred in adjudicating Dunkle guilty and sentencing him to four years in prison for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property.

Accordingly, we reverse Dunkle’s conviction for the grand theft, count three, in case number CF00-07081A-XX and remand for the trial court to resentence Dunkle on count four, dealing in stolen property. We affirm Dunkle’s judgments and sentences on counts one and two in case number CF00-07081A-XX and his convictions and sentences in case number CF00-07082A-XX.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

David P. Dunkle appeals his judgments and sentences for grand theft and dealing in stolen property. The State concedes error. In Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.2002), the Florida Supreme Court held that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2000), 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 pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere.” Here, in case number CF00-07081A-XX, the trial court erred in adjudicating Dunkle guilty and sentencing him to four years in prison for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property.

Accordingly, we reverse Dunkle’s conviction for the grand theft, count three, in case number CF00-07081A-XX and remand for the trial court to resentence Dunkle on count four, dealing in stolen property. We affirm Dunkle’s judgments and sentences on counts one and two in case number CF00-07081A-XX and his convictions and sentences in case number CF00-07082A-XX.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 So. 2d 584, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4142, 2003 WL 1568882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunkle-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack