Amanda Lynn Manata v. State of Florida , 213 So. 3d 973 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                       IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
    AMANDA LYNN MANATA,                   NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    Appellant,                      DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    v.                                    CASE NO. 1D15-1925
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________/
    Opinion filed March 2, 2016.
    An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.
    Mark J. Borello, Judge.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public
    Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Amanda Lynn Manata, pro se, Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney
    General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    The appellant appeals her convictions for one count of organized scheme to
    defraud and one count of grand theft, entered after an open plea to the charges. For
    the reasons discussed below, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for organized
    scheme to defraud, but reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate the
    appellant’s conviction for grand theft and to resentence the appellant on the
    organized scheme to defraud conviction.
    Convictions for both grand theft and scheme to defraud violate double
    jeopardy when both “are based on common allegations.” Saddler v. State, 
    921 So. 2d 777
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).        Here, both crimes were based on the same
    allegations that the appellant stole money from her employer by writing checks to
    herself between March 20, 2014, and September 4, 2014. Thus, we reverse and
    remand for the trial court to vacate the appellant’s conviction and sentence for
    grand theft, see Pizzo v. State, 
    945 So. 2d 1203
    , 1207 (Fla. 2006) (holding that
    grand theft was a lesser offense of organized fraud, for double jeopardy purposes,
    requiring reversal of grand theft convictions), and to resentence the appellant on
    the remaining organized scheme to defraud count. See Anucinski v. State, 
    148 So. 3d 106
     (Fla. 2014) (holding that appropriate remedy for defendant improperly
    convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property is to remand for court to
    vacate one of the sentences and to resentence the defendant on the remaining
    count); Gonzalez v. State, 
    123 So. 3d 691
     (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing
    conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds and remanding for circuit
    court to resentence the defendant on the remaining count).
    AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED AND REMANDED in part, for
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    2
    ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-1925

Citation Numbers: 213 So. 3d 973

Filed Date: 3/1/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023