Heselton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heselton v. State

463 So. 2d 275, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2421, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16723

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 1984

DocketNo. 84-902

StatusPublished

This text of 463 So. 2d 275 (Heselton 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

Heselton v. State, 463 So. 2d 275, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2421, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16723 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Daniel Heselton appeals an order placing him on probation for dealing in stolen property. In a motion to dismiss, he alleged that the property taken in a previous robbery was the same property involved in the dealing in stolen property charge. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant then pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed Heselton on probation for three years.

On appeal defense counsel asked permission to withdraw pursuant to An-ders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Defense counsel pointed out that the First District Court of Appeal has held that a defendant can be convicted of both robbery and dealing in stolen property even where the same property is involved in both charges. See Coley v. State, 391 So.2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We agree. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

SCHEB, A.C.J., CAMPBELL, J., and DENNIS P. MALONEY, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Daniel Heselton appeals an order placing him on probation for dealing in stolen property. In a motion to dismiss, he alleged that the property taken in a previous robbery was the same property involved in the dealing in stolen property charge. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant then pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed Heselton on probation for three years.

On appeal defense counsel asked permission to withdraw pursuant to An-ders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Defense counsel pointed out that the First District Court of Appeal has held that a defendant can be convicted of both robbery and dealing in stolen property even where the same property is involved in both charges. See Coley v. State, 391 So.2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We agree. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

SCHEB, A.C.J., CAMPBELL, J., and DENNIS P. MALONEY, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 So. 2d 275, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2421, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heselton-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack