Parnell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parnell v. State

661 So. 2d 128, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10587, 1995 WL 592471

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

DocketNo. 94-832

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 128 (Parnell 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

Parnell v. State, 661 So. 2d 128, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10587, 1995 WL 592471 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of three counts of grand theft, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes, and three counts of dealing in stolen property, in violation of section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes, relating to the same three vehicles. He was also convicted of one count of operating a “chop shop,” in violation of section 812.16, Florida Statutes. We reject appellant’s arguments relating to the sufficiency of evidence to support his convictions; however, we agree that, under the circumstances of this case, under section 812.025, Florida Statutes, he cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property as to the three vehicles. See Gray v. State, 611 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rhames v. State, 473 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (given statute’s prohibitory language, not precluded from raising this issue on appeal even though no objection to erroneous instructions). We therefore vacate appellant’s convictions for grand theft in counts I through III, and remand for correction of sentence to reflect that the grand theft convictions have been vacated, see Schummer v. State, 657 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In all other respects, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

BOOTH, JOANOS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of three counts of grand theft, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes, and three counts of dealing in stolen property, in violation of section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes, relating to the same three vehicles. He was also convicted of one count of operating a “chop shop,” in violation of section 812.16, Florida Statutes. We reject appellant’s arguments relating to the sufficiency of evidence to support his convictions; however, we agree that, under the circumstances of this case, under section 812.025, Florida Statutes, he cannot be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property as to the three vehicles. See Gray v. State, 611 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rhames v. State, 473 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (given statute’s prohibitory language, not precluded from raising this issue on appeal even though no objection to erroneous instructions). We therefore vacate appellant’s convictions for grand theft in counts I through III, and remand for correction of sentence to reflect that the grand theft convictions have been vacated, see Schummer v. State, 657 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In all other respects, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

BOOTH, JOANOS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 128, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10587, 1995 WL 592471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parnell-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack