Crosby v. State

Defendant was charged with both grand theft and dealing in stolen property in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. Defendant argued that under Fla. Stat. 812.025, the trial court was required to instruct the jury that it could convict him of either grand theft or dealing in stolen property, but not both. The trial court rejected Defendant’s argument. A jury returned guilty verdicts of both offenses. The State subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the grand theft charge, which the trial court granted. Defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that the trial court erred by failing to comply with section 812.025. The court of appeal affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court stayed proceedings pending disposition of Williams v. State, in which the Court held that the defendant’s convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft violated Fla. Stat. 812.025 and that the trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from arguing that the jury could find the defendant guilty of either offense. After Williams was decided, the Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s petition for review, quashed the court of appeal’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Williams.