02-1224 REYES V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-1224 REYES V. STATE

Case Date: 11/24/2004

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 ** ** Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** ** ** ** Opinion filed November 24, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stanford Blake, Judge. Sale & Kuehne and Benedict P. Kuehne and Susan Dmitrovsky, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SHEVIN, WELLS, and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Antonio sentence. Reyes appeals his theft convictions and LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 98-19469 CASE NO. 3D02-1224

ANTONIO J. REYES,

A jury found Reyes guilty of twenty nine counts The trial court denied Reyes' post-verdict

of grand theft.

motion for judgment of acquittal.

It rejected the defense's

requests for mitigation and announced a sentence of 71.1 months. The trial court's written order, however, provided As the State concedes, the

for a 71.7 month sentence.

sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of a 71.1 month sentence. Newson v. State, 867 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA See 2004)

(remanding with instructions that a scrivener's error in the written sentence be corrected to conform with the oral

pronouncement). An exhaustive review of the record demonstrates no

merit in the remaining points raised.

There was no error in See

charging Reyes with multiple counts of grand theft.

Hearn v. State, 55 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1951) (observing that when property is stolen at different times or places or as a result of a series of acts, separated in time, place, or circumstance, offense); each v. taking Diaz, is 814 a So. separate 2d 466 and (Fla. distinct 3d DCA

State

2002)(finding each invoice to be a separate taking and, therefore, only the final invoice was within the statute of limitations); Vizcon v. State, 771 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that money laundering statute did not

prohibit separate convictions for negotiation of each of twenty-nine separate checks written over the course of a

2

year even though defendant claimed that the offense was singular and continuous). violation. There was no double jeopardy

See Donovan v. State, 572 So. 2d 522, 526 (Fla.

5th DCA 1990); see also Sewall v. State, 783 So. 2d 1171, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The State introduced competent

evidence which was clearly inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events, see State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989), and the balance of Reyes's arguments are

likewise unpersuasive. Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener's error.

3

Download 02-1224 REYES V. STATE.pdf