RAMIREZ v. STATE (2020)

Norberto Ramirez (“Appellant”) appeals his convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property arguing that his sentence violates section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2018). We agree with Appellant and reverse.

The State charged Appellant with three crimes stemming from the theft of a television. At trial, the State presented evidence showing that Appellant stole a television and pawned it approximately two hours later. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty of grand theft and dealing in stolen property, and the trial court sentenced him on both counts over his objection. This appeal follows.

Section 812.025 unambiguously provides that, while an information may charge “theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct in separate counts that may be consolidated for trial, ․ the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.” Therefore, “a defendant may be charged with both theft and dealing in stolen property, but cannot be found guilty of both crimes” when they are in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. Blackmon v. State, 121 So. 3d 535, 541 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Goddard v. State, 458 So. 2d 230, 233 (Fla. 1984)). Here, Appellant stole a television and pawned it two hours later, and we hold that these actions constituted one scheme or course of conduct for the purposes of section 812.025. Accordingly, Appellant's dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft are improper, and we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate Appellant's conviction and sentence for the lesser offense of grand theft. See Blocker v. State, 247 So. 3d 649, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

PER CURIAM.

HARRIS, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.