Speregen v. State

OTT, Judge.

The appellant took a direct appeal from his convictions and sentences on four counts of receiving and concealing stolen property (Case No. 77-278) and also appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion (Case No. 77-268). The cases were consolidated for argument and disposition by this court. We find no merit with the direct appeal. However, the latter appeal has merit.

At issue is the single transaction rule.1 We hold that the rule applies and reverse.

*1075Appellant was charged by information with four counts of receiving and concealing stolen goods in violation of Section 812.-031,…