Rife v. State, 446 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Rife v. State, 446 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Glen Alan Bradshaw v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2019-02-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Glen Alan Bradshaw v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
The supreme court held the record did not reflect a “‘clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances’ ‘to meaningfully disrupt the flow’ of Williams’ conduct.” Id. at 534 (quoting Rife v. State, 446 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Fla. · 2013 · confidence medium
Rife v. State, 446 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also Stallworth v. State, 538 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (reversing the defendant’s grand theft conviction for stealing two television sets and trafficking in one of the televisions four days later); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (reversing the convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property “[s]ince the theft of the car and the stereo and the sale of the stereo two days later were all a portion of the same scheme or course of conduct”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, we find no fundamental error in the failure to charge the jury concerning section 812.025 because the two charges did not stem from “one scheme or course of conduct” within the meaning of the statute. “[S]ection 812.025 precludes dual convictions for theft and dealing in stolen property only when those charges relate to one scheme or course of conduct and thus does not entirely foreclose the possibility of prosecution for both offenses in connection with the same stolen property.” Wilson v. State, 884 So.2d 74, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Rife v. State, 446 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
As we noted in Rife v. State, 446 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), section 812.025 precludes dual convictions for theft and dealing in stolen property only when those charges relate to “one scheme or course of conduct” and thus does not entirely foreclose the possibility of prosecution for both offenses in connection with the same stolen property.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
As we noted in Rife v. State, 446 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), section 812.025 precludes dual convictions for theft and dealing in stolen property only when those charges relate to "one scheme or course of conduct" and thus does not entirely foreclose the possibility of prosecution for both offenses in connection with the same stolen property.
discussed Cited "see" Anucinski v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wilson, 884 So.2d at 77 (explaining that dual convictions are possible where “ ‘a clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances’ ” disrupts the flow of the defendant’s conduct) (quoting Rife v. State, 446 So.2d at 1158 ).
cited Cited "see" Blair v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rife v. State, 446 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Burrell v. State, 601 So.2d 628, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Michael Anthony RIFE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
82-2373 to 82-2375.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mar 14, 1984.
446 So. 2d 1157
Ott.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*1158] Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Robert F. Moeller, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Chief Judge.

The trial court adjudicated Michael Anthony Rife guilty of and sentenced him for both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. We reverse and set aside the grand theft conviction and sentence as violative of section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1981).

Section 812.025 prohibits a defendant from being found guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property where the two offenses arose from one scheme or course of conduct.

In the instant case, the informations charged defendant with stealing a boat and a motor belonging to Richard Fernandez on February 25, 1981, and dealing the same property on the same date. The factual basis recited by the assistant state attorney at the plea hearing essentially tracked the allegations contained in the informations. Without something more to meaningfully disrupt the flow by a clearly disjunctive interval of time or set of circumstances, defendant's conviction of and sentence for grand theft must be set aside. See Victory v. State, 422 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Williams v. State, 404 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

We do not mean to infer and do not read section 812.025 to prohibit convictions of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in all situations where the same property is involved. Cf. Cleaves v. State, 450 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The statutory prohibition against dual convictions only extends to the theft and dealing in stolen property "in connection with one scheme or course of conduct." The state may be able to prove that the theft of property and sale of that same property are distinct and unrelated criminal incidents. But cf. Kelly v. State, 397 So.2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

We vacate and set aside the conviction and sentence on the grand theft charge. In all other respects, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.

BOARDMAN and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.