Fox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fox v. State

892 So. 2d 1197, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1032, 2005 WL 264124

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 2005

DocketNo. 5D04-2767

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 892 So. 2d 1197 (Fox 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

Fox v. State, 892 So. 2d 1197, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1032, 2005 WL 264124 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Defense counsel has dropped a footnote in its Anders¹ brief to say that Celeste May Fox’s [“Fox”] sentences for grand theft and dealing in stolen property violate double jeopardy because they arose from the same course of conduct, citing Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002). In Barfield v. State, 871 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), however, we observed:

In the instant case, it is the lack of record evidence that [Defendant’s] convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft arose from the same scheme or course of conduct that creates the true impediment to [Defendant’s] argument on appeal.

Id. at 931. This case, like Barfield, involves a plea and the circumstances of the offences are not clear from the record. More important, unlike Barfield and Hall, Fox entered into a detailed plea agreement with the State that included both convictions. See Barfield, 871 So.2d at 930. Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Defense counsel has dropped a footnote in its Anders¹ brief to say that Celeste May Fox’s [“Fox”] sentences for grand theft and dealing in stolen property violate double jeopardy because they arose from the same course of conduct, citing Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002). In Barfield v. State, 871 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), however, we observed:

In the instant case, it is the lack of record evidence that [Defendant’s] convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft arose from the same scheme or course of conduct that creates the true impediment to [Defendant’s] argument on appeal.

Id. at 931. This case, like Barfield, involves a plea and the circumstances of the offences are not clear from the record. More important, unlike Barfield and Hall, Fox entered into a detailed plea agreement with the State that included both convictions. See Barfield, 871 So.2d at 930. Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 So. 2d 1197, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1032, 2005 WL 264124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack