Cases from cite.case.law:

BRADSHAW, v. STATE, 263 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . He asserts that the trial court violated section 812.025, Florida Statutes, when it adjudicated him guilty . . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment . . . theft and dealing in stolen property in accordance with a plea of guilty or no contest violates section 812.025 . . .

T. BLOCKER, v. STATE, 247 So. 3d 649 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . State , 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla. 2002) (finding that section 812.025, Florida Statutes, prohibits a trial . . . Where, as here, the jury is properly instructed under section 812.025 but nevertheless returns dual guilty . . . verdicts for both theft and dealing in stolen property that are contrary to section 812.025, we conclude . . . 548-49, 549 n.18 (Fla. 2013) (holding that where the jury was not properly instructed under section 812.025 . . . returns dual guilty verdicts for both theft and dealing in stolen property that are contrary to section 812.025 . . .

THOMAS, v. STATE, 236 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Pursuant to section 812.025, Florida Statutes, a court is precluded from allowing a defendant to plead . . .

BENNETT, v. STATE, 229 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Appellant correctly argues, and the State concedes, that Appellant’s convictions violate section 812.025 . . . State, 884 So.2d 74, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (noting that section 812.025 does not entirely foreclose the . . .

ADOYE, v. STATE, 224 So. 3d 887 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2015). The State concedes this error. . . .

ROUNDTREE, v. STATE, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2012); Goddard v. State, 458 So.2d 230, 233 (Fla. 1984). . . .

SYKES, v. STATE, 201 So. 3d 201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 197 So. 3d 649 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2014); Blackmon v. State, 121 So.3d 535, 547-49 (Fla.2013). . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 197 So. 3d 653 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2014); Blackmon v. State, 121 So.3d 585, 547-49 (Fla.2013). . . .

DOBROWOLSKI, v. STATE, 192 So. 3d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . concedes that Appellant’s dual convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property violate section 812.025 . . . Appellant for offenses which occurred in the same scheme or course of conduct, in violation of section 812.025 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 190 So. 3d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . stolen- property and grand theft convictions, contending that the dual convictions violate section 812.025 . . .

HARRISON, v. STATE, 198 So. 3d 765 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Zanger, 572 So.2d 1379, 1380 (Fla.1991) (holding that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1983), does . . .

HAYWOOD, v. STATE, 148 So. 3d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Defendant requested that the jury be given the following special jury instruction based on section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025 is clear that the trier of fact cannot find a defendant guilty of both dealing in stolen . . . but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts. § 812.025 . . . with one scheme or course of conduct, “trial courts have an obligation to instruct the jury on section 812.025 . . .

ANUCINSKI, v. STATE, 148 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Pursuant to section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2009), a defendant may properly be charged with both theft . . . the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.” § 812.025 . . . We explained that Section 812.025 allows the State to charge theft and dealing in stolen property in . . . The linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. . . . See Hall, 826 So.2d at 271 (“[W]e find that section 812.025 prohibits a trial court from adjudicating . . . dealing in stolen property “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct,” contrary to section 812.025 . . . An additional exception to the general rule of separate sentences for each offense exists in section 812.025 . . . explained, “[t]here is no more harm [when the lesser conviction is vacated due to a violation of section 812.025 . . . majority has never provided a cogent explanation for why impermissible dual convictions under section 812.025 . . . Blackmon did not bring section 812.025 to the trial court’s attention, and he did not object to the dual . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- INSTRUCTION, 140 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2014)

. . . in stolen property are submitted to the jury, the jury must be instructed in accordance with section 812.025 . . .

D. KABLITZ, v. STATE, 138 So. 3d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . (Fla.2013) (holding that a trial court’s error in failing to instruct the jury pursuant to section 812.025 . . .

M. CROSBY, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 2014)

. . . held that the defendant’s convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft violated section 812.025 . . .

CULPEPPER, v. STATE, 137 So. 3d 378 (Fla. 2014)

. . . held that the defendant’s convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft violated section 812.025 . . .

MELENDEZ, v. STATE, 135 So. 3d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2012), provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of . . . State, 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla. 2002), section 812.025 allows the State to charge theft and dealing in . . . In Jones, the court agreed with the defendant that section 812.025 precluded his dual conviction for . . . Supreme Court held that the proper remedy on appeal for dual convictions rendered contrary to section 812.025 . . . , but where the defendant had failed to raise section 812.025 at trial, is to vacate the conviction and . . .

WASHINGTON, v. STATE, 130 So. 3d 735 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

ALLWINE, v. STATE, 124 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . fundamental error, the trial court’s error in failing to instruct petitioner’s jury, pursuant to section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2004), provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of . . . but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts. § 812.025 . . .

McCOMAS, v. STATE, 123 So. 3d 141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . In such instances, section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2011), prohibits convictions for both grand theft . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- INSTRUCTION, 121 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 2013)

. . . in stolen property are submitted to the jury, the jury must be instructed in accordance with section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025, “Charging theft and dealing in stolen property,” provides as follows: Notwithstanding . . . but the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts. § 812.025 . . . Section 812.025 was enacted by the Florida Legislature during the 1977 legislative session and has not . . .

D. WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013)

. . . MUST A TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT THE JURY PURSUANT TO SECTION 812.025, FLORIDA STATUTES (2008), WHEN BOTH . . . Whether Trial Courts Must Instruct under Section 812.025? . . . the proper effect to section 812.025. . . . Section 812.025 has not been amended since its enactment in 1977. . . . . We note that section 812.025 does not impose a requirement of "the same property." . . . . Because I conclude that any error here in failing to instruct the jury regarding section 812.025, Florida . . . Section 812.025 is most reasonably understood in relation to the rule of construction in section 775.021 . . . In enacting section 812.025, the Legislature established an additional specific exception from the general . . . The exception established by section 812.025 should be treated in a manner similar to the exceptions . . . There is no basis for concluding that section 812.025 — any more than section 775.021(4) — is designed . . .

BLACKMON, v. STATE Of, 121 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2013)

. . . , but where the defendant had failed to raise section 812.025 at trial. . . . On appeal, the defendant raised section 812.025 for the first time. Id. . . . “the vast majority of criminal defense attorneys are oblivious” to section 812.025.... . . . See § 812.025, Fla. . . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

OCHOA, v. STATE, 120 So. 3d 70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. . . . State, 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.2002) (holding that section 812.025 also prohibits a trial court from . . . stolen property in connection with a single scheme or course of conduct were proscribed by section 812.025 . . .

BROWN, v. STATE, 112 So. 3d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . hold that the trial court did not commit fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on section 812.025 . . . Given these differing purposes, “[t]he linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of . . . a trial court, notwithstanding a request from the defense, fails to instruct the jury as to section 812.025 . . . Here, we find no fundamental error in the failure to charge the jury concerning section 812.025 because . . . “[S]ection 812.025 precludes dual convictions for theft and dealing in stolen property only when those . . .

M. CROSBY, a k a v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Crosby to represent himself at trial, and in failing to properly instruct the jury under section 812.025 . . . FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT THE JURY UNDER SECTION 812.025 In an amended information filed on November . . . Section 812.025 provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment . . . MUST THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT THE JURY TO PERFORM THE- SELECTION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 812.025 . . . Crosby’s argument concerning the requested jury instruction under section 812.025, we certify conflict . . .

STONE, v. STATE, 110 So. 3d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . As in Williams, we hold that a trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on section 812.025, Florida . . . MUST THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT THE JURY TO PERFORM THE SELECTION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 812.025 . . .

R. FRIEL, v. STATE, 110 So. 3d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. . . .

MILLAN, v. STATE, 113 So. 3d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Millan’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that pursuant to section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025 provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment . . . 810, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), in which the Fourth District held that “the plain meaning of section 812.025 . . . So.3d 360, 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), this court concluded that the procedural requirements in section 812.025 . . .

CULPEPPER, v. STATE, 107 So. 3d 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . failure to give a jury instruction on dealing in stolen property and grand theft pursuant to section 812.025 . . . grand theft and dealing in stolen property charges arose from “one scheme or course of conduct,” see § 812.025 . . . dealing in stolen property or grand theft, but not both, pursuant to Kiss, 42 So.3d 810, and section 812.025 . . . 70 So.3d 588 (Fla.2011), in which this court determined that the jury instruction regarding section 812.025 . . . Williams: 1.MUST THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT THE JURY TO PERFORM THE SELECTION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 812.025 . . .

J. DRAWDY, v. STATE, 98 So. 3d 165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

VALDES, v. STATE, 93 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .’ § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2005).” Id. at 46; see also Hall, 826 So.2d at 271. . . .

ANUCINSKI, v. STATE, 90 So. 3d 879 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . in adjudicating Anucinski guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property because section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025 provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information . . . State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002), the supreme court held that section 812.025 prohibits dual convictions . . . Hall explained: The linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property . . . Thus, we find that section 812.025 prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty of both . . .

B. WILKINS, v. STATE, 78 So. 3d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . arguing that the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to instruct the jury that under section 812.025 . . . See § 812.025 (providing that under proper circumstances a defendant may be charged with and tried for . . . not all, circuit courts have used in this district for many years” to satisfy the intent of section 812.025 . . . trial was not warranted on the basis of the trial court’s failure to give an instruction on section 812.025 . . .

D. KABLITZ, v. STATE, 134 So. 3d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . fundamental error that convictions for both theft and dealing in stolen property were prohibited by section 812.025 . . . previously raised, Kablitz asserts that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury — pursuant to section 812.025 . . .

HAYWOOD, v. STATE, 73 So. 3d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2010), precludes such a result: "Notwithstanding any other provision . . .

ROMAN, v. STATE, 73 So. 3d 796 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . stolen property in connection with this single scheme or course of conduct were prohibited by section 812.025 . . .

POOLE, v. STATE, 67 So. 3d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . that it could not find Poole guilty of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property under section 812.025 . . . argues that the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to instruct the jury that under section 812.025 . . . .3d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), this court held that the court’s failure to instruct the jury on section 812.025 . . . MUST THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT THE JURY TO PERFORM THE SELECTION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 812.025 . . .

D. WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 66 So. 3d 360 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . theft or the offense of dealing in stolen property, but not on both offenses, as explained in section'812.025 . . . We conclude that the procedural requirements in section 812.025 are unenforceable to the extent that . . . Williams asked the court to instruct the jury under section 812.025. . . . The procedure the trial court utilized to fulfill the intent of section 812.025 is the same procedure . . . We disagree because the language of section 812.025 is not an adequate jury instruction and we doubt . . .

LUTZ, v. STATE, 60 So. 3d 500 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . The appellant contends that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2008), precludes him from being convicted . . .

BLACKMON, v. STATE, 58 So. 3d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . could not return a guilty verdict for both theft and dealing in stolen property pursuant to section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, provides that: a single indictment or information may, under proper . . . In construing this statute, the Florida Supreme Court explained: The linchpin of section 812.025 is the . . . Accord Aversano, 966 So.2d at 497 (stating in dicta that “Hall and a plain reading of [section 812.025 . . . We also certify conflict with Kiss regarding the proper remedy when, contrary to section 812.025, the . . .

ALLWINE, v. STATE, 42 So. 3d 291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. . . . recognize that a trial court commits fundamental error by failing to instruct a jury, pursuant to section 812.025 . . .

G. KISS, v. STATE, 42 So. 3d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . in stolen property were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct and, pursuant to section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025 provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single indictment or information . . . We are once again faced with the conundrum created by the application of section 812.025. . . . The linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. . . . There is no ambiguity in section 812.025, as that section’s statutory language is clear. . . . as one writer suggests, “the vast majority of criminal defense attorneys are oblividus” to section 812.025 . . . committee on standard jury instructions in criminal cases consider an instruction based on section 812.025 . . . I echo Judge Klein’s concern that section 812.025 continues to generate appeals and must be addressed . . . An instruction based on section 812.025 presumably would tell the jury: “You may return a guilty verdict . . . Such an approach would comply with section 812.025, which states that separate counts for dealing in . . .

M. M. a v. STATE, 36 So. 3d 797 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2009), provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single . . .

LESANE, v. STATE, 33 So. 3d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat.; Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002); Pomaski v. . . .

GORDON, v. STATE, 24 So. 3d 727 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single . . . Thus, section 812.025 prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty of both grand theft . . .

R. JOHNSON, v. STATE, 14 So. 3d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibits convictions for both crimes where a single charging . . . Therefore, adjudicating and sentencing the Defendant on both of these counts violates section 812.025 . . .

KABLITZ, v. STATE, 13 So. 3d 155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . not raising issue that convictions for both theft and dealing in stolen property were prohibited by § 812.025 . . . See § 812.025, Fla. . . .

POMASKI, v. STATE, 989 So. 2d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . . § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Section 812.025 prohibits a trial court from adjudicating a defendant guilty of theft and dealing in . . . State, 864 So.2d 552, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Section 812.025 precludes a court from "allowing” a defendant to plead guilty or no contest to both theft . . .

ANDERSON, v. STATE, 2 So. 3d 303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . and two counts of dealing in stolen property, based on the same items being pawned, violates section 812.025 . . . We concluded that section 812.025 precluded convictions for both theft and dealing in stolen property . . . In this case appellant did not raise section 812.025 in the trial court; however, his adjudication of . . . as one writer suggests, “the vast majority of criminal defense attorneys are oblivious” to section 812.025 . . . committee on standard jury instructions in criminal cases consider an instruction based on section 812.025 . . .

ALLWINE, v. STATE, 978 So. 2d 272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1999), provides that where a defendant is charged in connection with . . .

L. O. J. a v. STATE, 974 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Nevertheless, section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2006) prohibits convictions for both crimes where a . . . the “trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both, of the counts.” § 812.025 . . . When the proper analysis is applied, it is clear that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2006) prohibits . . .

AVERSANO, v. STATE, 966 So. 2d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . could not be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in the same stolen property pursuant to section 812.025 . . . it could find her guilty of grand theft, or dealing in stolen property, but not both, under section 812.025 . . . Section 812.025 provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, .a single indictment or information . . . In construing section 812.025, the Florida Supreme Court stated: Section 812.025 allows the State to . . . The linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. . . .

A. M. W. a v. STATE, 934 So. 2d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . State, 596 So.2d 766, 767-68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . State, 864 So.2d 552, 554-55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (vacating convictions under section 812.025 though several . . .

BARBER, v. STATE, 918 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . argue that, in circuit court cases 01-01128 and 01-08189, the trial court was prohibited by section 812.025 . . . In Hall, the supreme court held that section 812.025 applied where a defendant entered pleas to the charges . . . of conduct and there was no indication that the defendant intended to waive his rights under section 812.025 . . . State, 864 So.2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that section 812.025 prohibited dual convictions for . . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2001), states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single . . .

CORVO, v. STATE, 916 So. 2d 44 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . .” § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

WILSON, v. STATE, 884 So. 2d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . both crimes in connection with the theft of the same property, contrary to the provisions of section 812.025 . . . APPLICATION OF SECTION 812.025 Section 812.025 provides that Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . State, 446 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), section 812.025 precludes dual convictions for theft . . .

BARFIELD, v. STATE, 871 So. 2d 929 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Barfield’s argument is premised on section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2001), which provides: Notwithstanding . . . State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla.2002), the supreme court found that “section 812.025 prohibits a trial court . . . that the dual convictions violated double jeopardy, but rather that they were prohibited by section 812.025 . . . conclude that the supreme court had determined that the legislature’s intent when it adopted section 812.025 . . .

F. JACKSON, v. STATE, 867 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2002), expressly prohibits an individual from being convicted of theft . . .

ROSADO, v. STATE, 867 So. 2d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . and dealing in stolen property violates double jeopardy, Hall is based upon a construction of section 812.025 . . .

A. TOSON, Sr. v. STATE, 864 So. 2d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Applying section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2001), we hold that there may not be two convictions, and . . . Although section 812.025 does not provide a definition for what constitutes “one scheme or course of . . . The court, thereafter, concluded that section 812.025 allows the State to charge theft and dealing in . . . Finally, the court concluded: The linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of the . . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2001), states: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single . . .

KILMARTIN, Jr. v. STATE, 848 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . He now appeals, contending that the trial court violated section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2001), and . . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (2001), reads: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single . . . would appear to compel the opposite conclusion, our supreme court has held that the intent of section 812.025 . . . conclude that the supreme court had determined that the legislature’s intent when it adopted section 812.025 . . . Accordingly, the two offenses were parts of a single “scheme or course of conduct,” and section 812.025 . . .

SIMON, v. STATE, 840 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The state agreed that the dual sentences cannot stand pursuant to section 812.025, Florida Statutes ( . . .

P. DUNKLE, v. STATE, 841 So. 2d 584 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . State, 826 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.2002), the Florida Supreme Court held that section 812.025, Florida Statutes . . .

HALE, v. STATE, 838 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . This issue is controlled by section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1999), which states: Notwithstanding any . . .

WILEY, Jr. v. STATE, 830 So. 2d 889 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (2001). . . .

HAUGABROOK, v. STATE, 827 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 812.025 provides that, although the State may charge both offenses, the trier of fact may return . . .

HALL, v. STATE, 826 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2002)

. . . We hold that section 812.025 is inapplicable in situations where, as in the present case, the defendant . . . State, 458 So.2d 230 (Fla.1984), we briefly stated that section 812.025 supplemented the theft statute . . . The linchpin of section 812.025 is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. . . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1981), is identical to section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1999). . . . . Sections 812.014, 812.019, and 812.025 are contained within the Florida Anti-Fencing Act of 1977. . . . dissent to quashing the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision as to the interpretation of section 812.025 . . .

DAY, v. STATE, 793 So. 2d 68 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . The state correctly concedes that Appellant’s conviction of grand theft was contrary to section 812.025 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 789 So. 2d 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1999), prohibits an individual from being convicted of both grand . . .

COOPER, v. STATE, 794 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

WOLCOTT, Jr. v. STATE, 774 So. 2d 954 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . number 99-10253, we reverse the conviction for theft because, as the state properly recognizes, section 812.025 . . .

HALL, v. STATE, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: Charging theft and dealing in stolen property . . . The second district stated, Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1981), forbids convictions for both theft . . . The first district stated, Defendant’s third point on appeal is that section 812.025, Florida Statutes . . . We hold that section 812.025 is inapplicable in situations where, as in the present case, the defendant . . . This court has not addressed the interpretation of section 812.025, Florida Statutes, as it relates to . . .

DUBUISSON, v. STATE, 762 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (1999). Affirmed in part; reversed in part with instructions. . . .

NEWLAND, v. STATE, 739 So. 2d 168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1997), entitled “Charging Theft and Dealing in Stolen Property,” provides . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that convictions for theft and dealing in stolen property . . .

BARNLUND, v. STATE, 724 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . A long line of cases from this court, establish that section 812.025 prohibits convictions and sentences . . .

SCORPIO, v. STATE, 717 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995) prohibits convictions for both crimes when they arise out of . . .

BISHOP, v. STATE, 718 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Pursuant to section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995), we strike the judgment and sentence for the less . . .

DIXSON, v. STATE, 714 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995), prohibits a defendant from being found guilty of both grand . . .

DIXSON, v. STATE, 714 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995), prohibits a defendant from being found guilty of both grand . . .

BEATON, v. STATE, 709 So. 2d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . the state properly concedes, his conviction on both charges violates double jeopardy under section 812.025 . . .

ARROYO, v. STATE, 704 So. 2d 655 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . stolen property as the two charges stemmed from a single scheme or course of conduct contrary to section 812.025 . . . that if convicted of both charges by the jury, the trial court could enter a conviction on only one. § 812.025 . . .

L. E. S. a v. STATE, 693 So. 2d 141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1995) prohibits convictions for both dealing in stolen property and . . .

STATE v. DASHER,, 687 So. 2d 916 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . could not be sentenced for both petit theft and trafficking in stolen property pursuant to section 812.025 . . . concedes that Dasher was improperly convicted of both petit theft and trafficking pursuant to section 812.025 . . .

ALMULLA, v. STATE, 677 So. 2d 987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . State, 636 So.2d 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (citing, § 812.025, Fla. Stat.; T.S.R. v. . . .

H. BLAIR, v. STATE, 667 So. 2d 834 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . and dealing in stolen property are included in one information and involve the same property, section 812.025 . . .

PARNELL, v. STATE, 661 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . support his convictions; however, we agree that, under the circumstances of this case, under section 812.025 . . .

SHEPHERD, v. STATE, 659 So. 2d 399 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . See § 812.025, Fla.Stat. (1993), and Burrell v. State, 601 So.2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . . .

SCHUMMER, v. STATE, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . jury found Schummer guilty of both dealing in stolen property and petit theft, despite that section 812.025 . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. STATE, 636 So. 2d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . . § 812.025, Fla.Stat. T.S.R. v. State, 596 So.2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Shearer v. . . .

STATE v. GRIMES,, 634 So. 2d 821 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . See section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1989). DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . . .

E. BURRELL, v. STATE, 626 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . State, 446 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); § 812.025, Fla. Stat. (1991). . . .

TORRES, Jr. v. STATE, 619 So. 2d 502 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . in the same stolen property violate constitutional equal protection principles because under Section 812.025 . . . appellant’s argument to be without merit for no state action deprived appellant of the benefit of Section 812.025 . . .

BARFIELD, v. STATE, 613 So. 2d 507 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The jury found appellant guilty on both counts but, pursuant to section 812.025, Florida Statutes, the . . .

GRAY, v. STATE, 611 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . motion for judgment of acquittal, by convicting and sentencing him for both crimes, contrary to Section 812.025 . . . Second, while Section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1989), allows the state to charge in a single indictment . . . State, 408 So.2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA1981) (section 812.025 prohibited convictions for both grand theft, . . .

BURRELL, v. STATE, 601 So. 2d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Burrell correctly contends that section 812.025, Florida Statutes (1989), precludes convictions for both . . .