Case Title: Crosby v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC13-1193

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2014-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC13-1193 
____________ 
 
TERRICK M. CROSBY, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
[April 17, 2104] 
 
QUINCE, J. 
We have for review Crosby v. State, 125 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), in 
which the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a 
conviction of grand theft when the defendant was charged with both grand theft 
and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct.  
The Second District certified conflict with Kiss v. State, 42 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th 
DCA 2010), and certified the same questions it had certified in Williams v. State, 
66 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), quashed, 121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013).  At the 
time that the Second District issued its decision below, Williams was pending 
review in this Court.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. 
 
- 2 - 
We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Williams v. State, 
121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013).  In Williams, we held that the defendant’s convictions 
for dealing in stolen property and grand theft violated section 812.025, Florida 
Statutes (2008); that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request for a 
jury instruction modeled after that section; and that the trial court erred in 
precluding defense counsel from arguing during closing arguments that the jury 
could find the defendant guilty of either offense.  Id. at 534.  We concluded that the 
errors were harmful and quashed the Second District’s decision.  Id.  We then 
issued an order in the instant case directing Respondent to show cause why this 
Court should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the Second District’s 
decision below, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in 
Williams.  Respondent filed a response conceding that it was “unable to show 
cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction and remand for reconsideration 
in light of its opinion in Williams.”  Petitioner agreed. 
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash the district court’s 
decision in Crosby, and remand this case to the Second District with instruction 
that the case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with 
this Court’s decision in Williams. 
It is so ordered. 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, 
JJ., concur. 
 
- 3 - 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified 
Direct Conflict of Decisions  
 
Second District – Case No. 2D11-463 
 
(Collier County)  
  
Terrick M. Crosby, pro se, Malone, Florida,    
 
for Petitioner  
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Susan Mary 
Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,   
 
for Respondent