Rimondi v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9074
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rimondi and her husband were observed via Walmart surveillance in Port St. Lucie concealing and taking razors; Rimondi held a box above the cart while Milian concealed razors in his pants.
- They were arrested for stealing or attempting to steal razors valued over $400.
- Rimondi was charged by information with third-degree grand theft and felony retail theft in concert with others.
- A jury found Rimondi guilty of both offenses; the trial court sentenced concurrent terms of thirty months in prison and thirty months of probation for each conviction.
- Rimondi argued the convictions and sentences violated double jeopardy; the court agreed on the double jeopardy issue and reversed the lesser offense.
- The court affirmed Rimondi’s conviction and sentence for felony retail theft and remanded to vacate the third-degree grand theft conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy for subsumed offenses | Rimondi argues dual convictions violate double jeopardy. | State argues Valdes allows separate punishments for distinct statutes. | Dual convictions violate double jeopardy; remand to vacate lesser offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla.2009) (supports separate punishments when legislature intends separate offenses)
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203 (Fla.2006) (when dual convictions impermissible, reverse lesser and affirm greater)
- McKinney v. State, 66 So.3d 852 (Fla.2011) (example where offenses share elements but not subsumed)
- Emshwitler v. State, 462 So.2d 457 (Fla.1985) (retail theft treated as a species of theft for penalty purposes)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S.1932) (tests whether offenses require proof of different elements)
- Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992) (statutory reenactment presumes earlier constructions apply)