The Third Appellate District reversed in part a judgment. In the published portion of its opinion, the court held that the prohibition against dual conviction barred a defendant’s conviction for both fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain goods and receipt of the same stolen goods.
Sumaria Love worked as a receptionist in a dentist’s office. In processing patients’ credit cards for payment, Love used the cards, as well as that of her employer, to make various purchases. She was caught and charged with multiple counts of various identity theft-based offenses.
