From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bishop v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 11, 1998
718 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 97-01043

September 11, 1998.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; M. Wm. Graybill, Judge.

Samuel Arthur Bishop, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Samuel Arthur Bishop appeals judgments and sentences for grand theft in the first degree, a first-degree felony, and dealing in stolen property, a second-degree felony. It is undisputed that both offenses arose out of one scheme or course of conduct. We affirm the judgment and sentence for grand theft. Pursuant to section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995), we strike the judgment and sentence for the less serious offense of dealing in stolen property. See Ridley v. State, 407 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

THREADGILL, A.C.J., ALTENBERND, J. and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Bishop v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 11, 1998
718 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Bishop v. State

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL ARTHUR BISHOP, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 11, 1998

Citations

718 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Anderson v. State

The remedy routinely imposed under these circumstances, however, is vacating the conviction which carries the…

Lutz v. State

In accordance with the controlling precedents in our own district, we affirm the conviction and HFO sentence…