Naughton v. State

889 So. 2d 931, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19114, 2004 WL 2898164
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 15, 2004·No. No. 4D03-748·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER curiam:.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for burglary and two counts of dealing in stolen property. Multiple convictions for dealing in property stolen from the same burglary do not constitute a double jeopardy violation where, as here, the stolen items were sold on different dates to different pawn shops.

However, as the state acknowledges, we must remand this case for the trial court to clarify whether it intends the 30-year HFO sentences imposed on Counts II and III, dealing in stolen property, to run concurrently or consecutively to the 30-year HFO sentence in Case No. 02-12332 CF10A, and if necessary, to correct the written sentences to reflect the court’s intent.

FARMER, C.J., STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Naughton v. State, 889 So. 2d 931, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19114, 2004 WL 2898164 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

889 So. 2d 931 (Naughton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bradley v. State
174 So. 3d 1052 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Lowe v. State
889 So. 2d 931 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)