Filed: Mar. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 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, App
Summary: 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, Appe..
More
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