Hinestroza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hinestroza v. State

867 So. 2d 1279, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3846, 2004 WL 587647

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 2004

DocketNo. 5D02-3582

StatusPublished

This text of 867 So. 2d 1279 (Hinestroza 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

Hinestroza v. State, 867 So. 2d 1279, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3846, 2004 WL 587647 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

Fernando Hinestroza appeals several convictions after pleas of guilty followed by a violation of probation/community control. On appeal, he contends that the convictions on several of the counts were fundamental error.

We agree with Hinestroza that he was improperly convicted of theft and dealing in stolen property in case number GO-32195. A person may not be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property where the charges arose out of the same course of conduct. Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002). The failure to preserve this issue is not a bar to relief on appeal. See id. at n. 3 (noting that there was no objection below on this basis when the defendant pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft and dealing in stolen property). Therefore, the conviction and sentence for theft in case number 00-32195 are vacated. All other convictions and sentences are affirmed as no reversible error has been shown.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, J.

Fernando Hinestroza appeals several convictions after pleas of guilty followed by a violation of probation/community control. On appeal, he contends that the convictions on several of the counts were fundamental error.

We agree with Hinestroza that he was improperly convicted of theft and dealing in stolen property in case number GO-32195. A person may not be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property where the charges arose out of the same course of conduct. Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002). The failure to preserve this issue is not a bar to relief on appeal. See id. at n. 3 (noting that there was no objection below on this basis when the defendant pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft and dealing in stolen property). Therefore, the conviction and sentence for theft in case number 00-32195 are vacated. All other convictions and sentences are affirmed as no reversible error has been shown.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

867 So. 2d 1279, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3846, 2004 WL 587647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinestroza-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack