Court Opinion

ID: 9941588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 16:08:19.853286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:47.161496
License: Public Domain

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                         STATE OF FLORIDA
                        _____________________________

                              Case No. 6D23-653
                      Lower Tribunal No. CF22-000481-XX
                       _____________________________

                                 DANIEL ARROYO,

                                     Appellant,

                                         v.

                                STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                     Appellee.

                        _____________________________

                  Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.
                            Sharon M. Franklin, Judge.

                                 February 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

      Daniel Arroyo challenges his judgment and sentences for several counts of

burglary and grand theft. 1 Arroyo argues, and the State appropriately concedes, that

his conviction for grand theft of a firearm should be reversed based on double

jeopardy in light of his separate conviction for grand theft of a motor vehicle. 2 At

      1
         This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this
Court on January 1, 2023.
       2
         Although this issue was not raised below, a violation of double jeopardy
constitutes fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal. Rubio
v. State, 233 So. 3d 482, 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
trial, the victim testified that the center console of the truck where his gun was stored

had been rummaged through, but the gun had not been removed. Thus, as the State

acknowledges, there was no geographic or temporal separation between the taking

of the truck and the taking of the gun. See Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798, 799

(Fla. 1992) (“A separate crime occurs only when there are separate distinct acts of

seizing the property of another.”); Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA

2003) (“The State is precluded by double jeopardy principles from obtaining

convictions on both grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of the contents

when ‘there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or

temporal separation between two acts of taking.’” (quoting Beaudry v. State, 809 So.

2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002))). Accordingly, Arroyo’s conviction for grand theft

of a firearm must be vacated. 3

      AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

STARGEL, NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant
Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and J. Wade Stidham, Assistant
Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

  NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
              AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

      3
          We affirm the remainder of Arroyo’s convictions without further comment.
                                           2