Holmes v. State
This text of 923 So. 2d 557 (Holmes 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.
Opinion
Appellant’s convictions for both grand theft and grand theft of a motor vehicle violate double jeopardy principles because the items forming the basis for the grand theft charge were not stolen in a distinct criminal act, but simply happened to be inside the car when it was stolen. See Mixson v. State, 857 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence as to Count I, grand theft of a motor vehicle, reverse the conviction as to Count II, grand theft, and direct the lower tribunal to vacate the conviction and sentence as to Count II.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
923 So. 2d 557, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3751, 2006 WL 658848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.