REYES V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 ** ANTONIO J. REYES, ** Appellant, vs. ** CASE NO. 3D02-1224 ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 98-19469 ** Opinion filed November 24, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stanford Blake, Judge. Sale & Kuehne and Benedict P. Kuehne and Susan Dmitrovsky, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SHEVIN, WELLS, and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Antonio sentence. Reyes appeals his theft convictions and A jury found Reyes guilty of twenty nine counts of grand theft. The trial court denied Reyes post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal. It rejected the defense s requests for mitigation and announced a sentence of 71.1 months. The trial court s written order, however, provided for a 71.7 month sentence. As the State concedes, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the trial court s oral pronouncement of a 71.1 month sentence. Newson v. State, 867 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA See 2004) (remanding with instructions that a scrivener s error in the written sentence be corrected to conform with the oral pronouncement). An exhaustive review of the record merit in the remaining points raised. demonstrates no There was no error in charging Reyes with multiple counts of grand theft. See Hearn v. State, 55 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1951) (observing that when property is stolen at different times or places or as a result of a series of acts, separated in time, place, or circumstance, offense); each State v. taking Diaz, is 814 a So. separate 2d 466 and (Fla. distinct 3d DCA 2002)(finding each invoice to be a separate taking and, therefore, only the final invoice was within the statute of limitations); Vizcon v. State, 771 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that money laundering statute did not prohibit separate convictions for negotiation of each of twenty-nine separate checks written over the course of a 2 year even though defendant claimed that the offense was singular and continuous). violation. There was no double jeopardy See Donovan v. State, 572 So. 2d 522, 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); see also Sewall v. State, 783 So. 2d 1171, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The State introduced competent evidence which was clearly inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events, see State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989), and the balance of Reyes's arguments likewise unpersuasive. Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener's error. 3 are
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
