context: Count 3 charged the Defendant with dealing in stolen property, "to wit: JEWELRY.... " The jury found the Defendant guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. As , both charges relate to the same jewelry and to one scheme or course of conduct, the Defendant's conviction for grand theft of the jewelry violates double jeopardy.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: reversing the defendant's grand theft conviction where he was charged with grand theft of two television sets, and trafficking in one of the stolen television sets four days later
citation_a.sentence: Stallworth v. State, 538 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (reversing the defendant’s grand theft conviction where he was charged with grand theft of two television sets, and trafficking in one of the stolen television sets four days later); see Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (rejecting the state’s attempt to limit the grand theft count to a stolen car, and the dealing in stolen property count to a stereo system).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: rejecting the state's attempt to limit the grand theft count to a stolen car, and the dealing in stolen property count to a stereo system
citation_b.sentence: Stallworth v. State, 538 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (reversing the defendant’s grand theft conviction where he was charged with grand theft of two television sets, and trafficking in one of the stolen television sets four days later); see Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (rejecting the state’s attempt to limit the grand theft count to a stolen car, and the dealing in stolen property count to a stereo system).