Bishop v. State

Samuel Arthur BISHOP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 11, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-09-11

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2012

4 state decisions

Relies on Ridley v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-09-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Samuel Arthur Bishop, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Samuel 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).

¶5THREADGILL, A.C.J., ALTENBERND, J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.