Jackson v. State
The Fourth DCA affirmed denial of most of Jackson's rule 3.850 claims but reversed on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge his dual convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft under section 812.025, Florida Statutes. The trial court had erroneously denied the claim based solely on whether the property involved in each count differed, rather than analyzing whether the offenses arose from one scheme or course of conduct.
📄 Read the official opinion (4th DCA) →
Florida Court Tracker flags decisions like this the week they come down, sorted by practice area, alongside your research platform. See what else changed in PC_IAC →
Key facts
- Jackson was convicted of both dealing in stolen property and grand theft under section 812.025, Florida Statutes, based on charges involving property obtained through a single scheme or course of conduct.
- The trial court denied Jackson's rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the dual convictions, reasoning that the counts involved different property items.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reaffirms and clarifies that the section 812.025 dual-conviction prohibition turns on whether the theft and dealing offenses arose from one scheme or course of conduct, not on whether the State can… — full analysis with a trial
Get decisions like this in your practice area every week: free for 14 days
The rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Your practice areas first
- Plain-English holdings & why it matters
- Statutes & rules that take effect in your area
- One Friday briefing for your team
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.