The Double Jeopardy Clauses in the state and federal Constitutions aim to protect individuals from being unfairly subjected to repeated prosecutions and punishments for the same offense. As such, if a defendant is convicted on multiple theft charges arising out of the same incident, they may be able to successfully argue that one or more of their convictions may be vacated. In a recent Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of multiple theft crimes, the court explained when the Double Jeopardy clauses are triggered and ultimately vacated two of the defendant’s convictions.  If you are charged with a theft offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a Clearwater theft crime defense lawyer about what defenses you may be able to set forth.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with burglary, grand theft from a retail merchant, and two counts of petit theft. Following a trial, a jury found him guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing that his two convictions for petit theft arising out of the same incident violated the rule against double jeopardy. The court agreed, and the State acknowledged the error. As such, the court vacated his theft convictions; it otherwise affirmed his remaining convictions without further comment.

Protections Provided by the Double Jeopardy Clause

The Double Jeopardy Clause in both the United States and Florida Constitutions prohibits subjecting an individual to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense. In cases involving theft convictions, where the offenses are merely variations of the core offense of theft, having dual convictions based on the same core offense is not permissible. This is because each offense is considered an aggravated form of the underlying offense of theft, and they differ only in terms of degree.

The post Florida Court Explains Protections Provided by the Double Jeopardy Clause appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

A Florida appellate court recently reversed a conviction due to insufficient evidence of the value of stolen property in a grand theft case. If you live in Clearwater and are charged with grand theft or another criminal offense you should meet with a skilled Clearwater criminal defense attorney to discuss the circumstances surrounding your arrest and your available defenses.

Facts Surrounding the Alleged Theft

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with and convicted of burglary and grand theft. The State’s primary witness at the defendant’s trial was a co-defendant, who testified on behalf of the State following an entry of an open plea. The witness stated that he drove the defendant and another person to an apartment building and acted as a lookout as the defendant and the other man entered an apartment.

It is reported that the defendant and the other man returned to the vehicle with a television and other items, which were taken to the witness’ house for storage. When the witness was subsequently arrested, he allowed the police to search his cell phone. The search revealed over twenty calls between the witness and “GB” during the time of the burglary. The witness testified that GB was the contact name for the defendant. Following the trial, the defendant appealed his convictions.

Proving Grand Theft

On appeal, the court reversed the defendant’s grand theft conviction. The court noted that to prove grand theft, the State has to prove that the value of the stolen items is at least $300. Under the Florida statute that sets forth the elements of theft crimes, “value” is defined as the market value of the property when and where the crime is committed, or if the value cannot be accurately determined, the cost of replacement property. The court stated it had a two-prong test for determining whether the evidence produced at trial is sufficient to show the value of stolen property. First, the court must determine whether the person testifying is competent to attest to the value of the evidence. Then, the court must analyze whether the evidence produced is adequate to show that the stolen property was worth at least $300 at the time of the theft.

Here, the court noted that the victim testified as to the value of the property at trial, but only provided estimates of what he paid for the property.  No testimony was offered regarding the age or condition of the items, however, or the degree to which the value of the items had depreciated since they were purchased. Thus, the court found that the victim’s estimate of the purchase price was insufficient evidence of the value of the items. Accordingly, the court reversed the defendant’s grand theft conviction and remanded the case with instructions.

Retain a Seasoned Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are a Clearwater resident charged with grand theft, you should retain a seasoned Clearwater grand theft criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to assist you in formulating a defense. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney who will aggressively advocate on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Hanlon at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to schedule a conference.

More Blog Posts:

Shoplifting at Florida Wal-Mart Doesn’t Justify Fraud Charge, Court Says, July 5, 2018, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Court Reverses Florida Grand Theft Conviction Due to Insufficient Evidence appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The trial judge denied Defendant’s motion for acquittal. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to three years in prison and another two years of probation. Defendant later appealed the conviction.

Reversing the conviction on appeal, the First District said the prosecutors didn’t prove every element of the scheme to defraud charge. That charge—also often referred to as “organized fraud” —requires among other elements that prosecutors establish an “intent to defraud, or intent to obtain property by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or willful misrepresentations of a future act,” the court explained. The prosecutors didn’t prove that intent in this case, the court said, because Defendant never claimed that the stolen property was his.

“He openly walked out the front door with the stolen goods each time,” the court explained. “And no case has been cited to us that shoplifting, even repeatedly, is a scheme to defraud.”

Instead, the court said the prosecutors should have charged Defendant with theft. Because they didn’t do so, the First District reversed the conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings. It explained that petit theft and grand theft are “lesser included offenses” that don’t require a misrepresentation or intent to defraud.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced defense lawyer. Clearwater criminal defense attorney Will Hanlon is a seasoned lawyer who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of crimes. Call our offices at (727) 897-5413 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

More blog posts:

Confidential Informants in Florida Drug Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

New Stand-Your-Ground Law at Issue in Tampa Murder Trial

The post Shoplifting at Florida Wal-Mart Doesn’t Justify Fraud Charge, Court Says appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

At the time, state law made it a crime for a person in a position of confidence or trust to take advantage of an elderly or disabled person by knowingly deceiving or intimidating them. The law also made it a crime if the person simply knew or should have known that the victim lacked the capacity to consent. Although prosecutors proceeded on the second theory, the court didn’t tell the jury that prosecutors were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or should have known that his aunt couldn’t consent. In fact, the judge didn’t mention the “knew or should have known” element at all. The defendant was eventually convicted.

On appeal, the Third District agreed with the defendant that the judge committed a “fundamental error” in the jury instructions. It disagreed, however, that the mistake meant the conviction should be overturned.

“Although the giving of an erroneous or defective jury instruction that omits a disputed element of the offense generally necessitates a new trial, a new trial is not required in this case,” the court explained. “That is because the defendant was also charged with grand theft in the second degree, the jury found the defendant guilty of grand theft in the second degree, and grand theft in the second degree is a lesser included offense of exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult.”

Since the grand theft charge didn’t require showing that the defendant knew or should have known that his aunt couldn’t consent to the reverse mortgage, the court said the conviction should be reduced.

If you or a loved one has been charged with grand theft in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced defense lawyer. Clearwater theft crime attorney Will Hanlon is a seasoned lawyer who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of offenses. Call our offices at (727) 897-5413 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

More blog posts:

Confidential Informants in Florida Drug Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

New Stand-Your-Ground Law at Issue in Tampa Murder Trial

The post Jury Instruction Snafu Clouds Florida Theft Case appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The defendant was later charged with violating the terms of his release by leaving the residence without an approved reason and failing to submit to electronic monitoring. Following a hearing, he was sentenced to three years in state prison. The judge said the defendant posed a threat to the community, based partly on some of the original allegations against the defendant in the robbery and theft case. He appealed the decision, arguing that the judge should not have taken into account any allegations related to the charges that were dropped. The Fifth District agreed in part.

The court explained that the defendant was originally charged with using a firearm to commit the alleged robbery, but he was later convicted of grand theft. Since grand theft doesn’t require the use of a firearm, the court said the trial judge should not have considered evidence that the defendant used a gun to commit the original crime in setting his sentence.

“The trial court’s consideration of the firearm possession was foreclosed by the State’s decision not to proceed on the charges that alleged possession of a firearm,” the court said.

The court rejected the defendant’s request to impose a new sentence that doesn’t involve prison time, however. Instead, it sent the case back to the trial judge to consider the appropriate punishment.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced defense lawyer. Clearwater probation violation attorney Will Hanlon is a seasoned lawyer who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of offenses. Call our offices at (727) 897-5413 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

More blog posts:

Confidential Informants in Florida Drug Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

New Stand-Your-Ground Law at Issue in Tampa Murder Trial

The post Florida Plea Deals and the Pitfalls of Breaking Your Word appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The court in this case relied on a 2013 decision, C.G. v. State of Florida, to determine the appropriate method to establish the valuation of stolen property under Florida law. At trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree petit theft for stealing a cell phone with a value of $100 or more but less than $300. The Fifth District court held that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the cell phone’s value was at least $100.

The victim of the theft testified that he paid $200 for the cell phone six months before the theft and that the cell phone was in essentially the same condition at the time it was stolen as it was when it was purchased. The court, in reciting the applicable law, stated that the value of a stolen item at the time of the theft must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Value may be established through direct testimony of fair market value. In the absence of direct testimony, its value can be established through evidence of:  (1) the original market cost; (2) the manner in which the property was used; (3) the condition of the property; and (4) the percentage of depreciation of the items since the purchase.

In a trial involving new technology, the court noted that computer-related equipment can become obsolete very quickly, and evidence must be presented to determine its value at the time of the alleged crime. In other words, the prosecution must either present direct testimony as to the value of the stolen item or establish all four prongs of the above mentioned test. In C.G., the prosecution did not present direct testimony and failed to present evidence that would establish the cell phone’s depreciation in value, which could have dropped below $100.

Florida law criminalizes various kinds of theft. The prosecution is required to prove all of the elements of a theft crime, including the value of the allegedly stolen property. Will Hanlon, attorney at law, has years of experience representing people in theft cases and ensuring that the prosecution is following the rules and meeting its burden of proof. If you have been arrested for a theft crime, call Hanlon Law to discuss your situation with a Clearwater theft crime attorney. You can contact us via our website or call us at 727-897-5413 to schedule an appointment.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Senate Introduces Proposed Good Samaritan Law, Criminalizing Social Media Activity Under Certain Circumstances, Clearwater & St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog, October 16, 2017

Nine Members of the Florida Gators Football Team Face Credit Card Fraud Allegations, Clearwater & St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog, September 29, 2017

The post Florida Theft Crimes Require Prosecution to Prove Fair Market Value of Stolen Property, Rules Appeals Court appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Statute section 775.021(4) provided the rules of construction that served as the basis for the court’s double jeopardy analysis. Criminals are generally tried and convicted for all of the crimes that occurred in a criminal transaction or episode; however, an exception to this rule is if separate offenses require proof of the same elements of, or are subsumed by, another offense.

At trial, the defendant was convicted of sexual battery, attempted sexual battery, burglary of a conveyance, and carjacking. He appealed the convictions of both burglary of a conveyance and carjacking, arguing that carjacking required proof of the same elements as burglary of a conveyance, and the result was double jeopardy. He urged the court to adopt the dissenting position in the Florida court of appeals case, Green v. State, 828 So. 2d 462 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2002, which previously considered the issue.

The dissent in Green identified several instances in which Florida courts have determined that a conviction of two different offenses would constitute double jeopardy, such as (i) trafficking possession and simple possession, and (ii) home invasion robbery and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery. Similarly, the dissent reasoned that burglary of a conveyance was subsumed by the crime of carjacking. That is, it would be impossible to commit the carjacking without committing the burglary of a conveyance.

The majority in Green rejected this position because the crimes neither share the same elements nor is the burglary of a conveyance subsumed within carjacking. The act of breaking into a vehicle (the burglary of a conveyance charge) is a separate evil, often involving damage to components of that vehicle. In addition, the majority argued that it was possible to commit a carjacking without committing burglary. Burglary is committed the moment the defendant enters the vehicle with the requisite intent. However, the defendant actually would need to start the vehicle and drive away with it in order to commit the separate crime of auto theft for the carjacking.

The Florida appeals court sided with the majority view in Green and upheld the defendant’s convictions of both burglary of a conveyance and carjacking.

Having a qualified, results-oriented criminal lawyer beside you as you fight charges of grand theft can make all of the difference. At Hanlon Law, we can put our many years of experience and our hard-earned knowledge of the Florida court system to work in defending your case. Call us at 727-897-5413 or contact us online to schedule an appointment with a St. Petersburg or Clearwater grand theft attorney.

The post Defendant in Florida Carjacking Case Fails on Double Jeopardy Appeal appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.