Rohaus v. State

667 So. 2d 858, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 418, 1996 WL 26961
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 24, 1996
DocketNo. 94-3659
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 So. 2d 858 (Rohaus 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
Rohaus v. State, 667 So. 2d 858, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 418, 1996 WL 26961 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

SHAHOOD, Judge.

Appellant Douglas Rohaus appeals his convictions and sentences on four counts of official misconduct, seven counts of grand theft, and ten counts of petit theft. Rohaus raises four points on appeal. We find merit only in the final issue which addresses a sentencing irregularity. We accordingly affirm his convictions, but reverse his sentences and remand to the trial court to correct a sentencing error.

Appellant was a forfeiture officer with the Hallandale, Florida, police department. As a result of an internal audit, appellant was charged by amended information with thirteen (13) counts of official misconduct, seven (7) counts of grand theft, and ten (10) counts of petit theft. At the conclusion of the state’s case, Rohaus moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court granted on nine of the thirteen counts of official misconduct including count I. Thereafter, appellant was convicted by a jury of the remaining counts.

At sentencing the trial court sentenced Rohaus on each of the petit theft counts to a term of county jail time to run concurrent with that imposed in count I; however, count I had been previously dismissed by the court pursuant to the judgment of acquittal.

It is axiomatic that one cannot be sentenced to a term of punishment that runs concurrently with the sentence imposed for a dismissed count because no such sentence exists. See generally Thomas v. State, 633 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 640 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1994).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Whipple v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE
892 So. 2d 554 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
667 So. 2d 858, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 418, 1996 WL 26961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rohaus-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.