Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“here, there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking.”
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Moore v. State (fladistctapp, 2005-06-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Moore v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
here, there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DANIEL ARROYO v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798, 799 (Fla. 1992) (“A separate crime occurs only when there are separate distinct acts of seizing the property of another.”); Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“The State is precluded by double jeopardy principles from obtaining convictions on both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the contents when ‘there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking.’” (quoting Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D. T. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing a conviction for grand theft of property stolen from a truck where the defendant was also convicted of grand theft of the truck); Moore v. State, 904 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that double jeopardy precluded convictions for both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft based on the defendant's taking of the contents in the vehicle); Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that double jeopardy precludes convictions for both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Senelus v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153, 154 (Fla. 1994) (finding that convictions for grand theft and robbery which arose from a single taking of an automobile at knifepoint violate double jeopardy because "these offenses are merely degree variants of the core offense of theft"); Beaudry v. State, 809 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (relying upon Sirmons, holding that convictions for grand theft of a car and grand theft of computer equipment that was inside it constituted a double jeopardy violation); see also Gorday v. State, 907 So.2d 640, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (finding convictions for robber…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rudolf v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
The State is precluded by double jeopardy principles from obtaining convictions on both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the contents when "there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking." Beaudry v. State, 809 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994); Johnson v. State, 597 So.2d 798 (Fla.1992).
discussed Cited "see" Tyrone Randy Johnson, Jr. v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Beaudry, 809 So.2d at 84 (holding conviction for grand theft of motor vehicle and grand theft violated double jeopardy as there was no separation when the ear contained computer equipment); Ford, 849 So.2d at 478 (holding charges violated double jeopardy when construction equipment already in car at time of theft).
discussed Cited "see" Tyrone Randy Johnson, Jr. v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Beaudry, 809 So. 2d at 84 (holding conviction for grand theft of motor vehicle and grand theft violated double jeopardy as there was no separation when the car contained computer equipment); Ford, 849 6 So. 2d at 478 (holding charges violated double jeopardy when construction equipment already in car at time of theft).
cited Cited "see" Mixson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Ford v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 84 ; see also Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994)(defendant could not be convicted separately for offenses of robbery with a weapon and grand theft of automobile based on single taking of the automobile at knife point; both offenses were merely aggravated forms of the same underlying theft and occurred simultaneously).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barry BEAUDRY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
5D01-1547.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb 22, 2002.
809 So. 2d 83
Cobb.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*84] James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

COBB, J.

The appellant, Barry Beaudry, stole a car containing computer equipment and was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle (as a lesser included offense of carjacking) and grand theft of $10,000.00 or more. On appeal he asserts double jeopardy on the basis that there was only one criminal act of simultaneous taking, which included the car and its contents. Beaudry relies upon Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153 (Fla.1994), wherein it was held that a defendant could not be convicted of robbery and grand theft of the same property, a car he stole at knife point. The Florida Supreme Court held that "these offenses are merely degree variants of the core offense of theft."

The state relies on the recent opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Hayes v. State, 803 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2001) wherein the court upheld separate convictions of both armed robbery and grand theft of a motor vehicle when the defendant stole various items from inside the victim's residence, including car keys, then proceeded outside the victim's residence and stole the victim's vehicle utilizing those keys. Because of the "geographic and temporal separation in the taking of separate property," the court upheld convictions for both armed robbery (inside the residence) and grand theft of the motor vehicle (outside the residence), determining that the dual convictions did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.

The instant case is controlled by Sirmons rather than Hayes. Here, there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking. See also Brown v. State, 430 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1983).

The more recent case of Cruller v. State, 808 So.2d 201 (Fla.2002) is inapplicable to the instant case because it involved a conviction for carjacking. In Cruller the court determined that the Florida Legislature intended to authorize separate punishments for carjacking and robbery, when the indictment for robbery lists property other than the motor vehicle. Had Beaudry been convicted of carjacking and grand theft of property other than the motor vehicle, both convictions would stand.

We reverse the second grand theft conviction and remand for resentencing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SHARP, W. and PALMER, JJ., concur.