Anucinski v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9213
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Anucinski entered an open plea to grand theft (third-degree) and dealing in stolen property (second-degree).
- The charges stemmed from a single scheme: stealing a ring from Tiffany & Co. and pawning it the same day.
- Section 812.025 bars dual convictions arising from one scheme or course of conduct; trier of fact may convict on one count only.
- Hall v. State held that dual convictions from a single scheme in a plea scenario are prohibited; jury verdicts allow a choice, plea should too.
- Trial court remanded by vacating the lesser conviction; Hall directs remand with a specific remedy, but discretion exists in some remand contexts.
- Court remands to vacate the grand theft conviction to avoid dual convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 812.025 bars dual convictions from one scheme | Anucinski argues dual convictions cannot stand from one scheme. | State argues dual convictions may be vacated based on remedy under 812.025 and Hall. | Yes; dual convictions improper; remedy vacate lesser conviction. |
| What remedy should apply on remand after plea | Remand for judicial determination of which conviction is lesser guilty. | State advocates vacating lesser conviction without further fact-finding. | Remand to vacate the grand theft conviction. |
| Whether Hall requires evidentiary hearing to determine more-guilty offense in plea cases | Hall permits discretion beyond automatic vacatur. | Hall contemplates the judge making a choice but does not require a hearing here. | Hall governs; here no further fact-finding was needed; remand with vacatur of grand theft. |
| Are prior post-Hall practices directing automatic vacatur still valid | Earlier cases mandated vacating the lesser offense without hearing. | Post-Hall practice may be consistent with remand directions. | Remand must follow Hall's direction; vacate the lesser offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002) (prohibits dual convictions arising from a single scheme when pleading to both counts; remand directions depend on choice between counts)
- Wilson v. State, 884 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (single scheme or course of conduct; supports vacatur remedy)
- Pomaski v. State, 989 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (remand/remedial approach after one-scheme convictions)