Pinellas County Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Lately we've been handling alot of grand theft and credit card fraud cases.  As you may or may not know, grand theft is any theft over $300. It can be a 3rd degree felony (5 years) if it's under $5000, but if the theft is over $5000 it can be a second or first degree felony.  (except for grand theft auto - the law gets confusing from here so call us if you have questions)  I feel badly for the people because they are committing crimes with serious penalties, just to get by.  Most of our clients charged with grand theft have no prior criminal record.  The crimes are committed in an unsophisticated manner and are really easy to detect.  

Take this woman who the police say used a stolen credit card to bond her husband out of jail. According to the St. Petersburg Times, the woman used a stolen credit card and paid $900 to a bondsman to get her husband out of jail in back in July.  She said she had permission to use the card.  Interestingly, since I deal with this so much, she may have had permission to use the card back in July, but now the victim is saying she never gave her permission.  This is more common than anyone would believe.

 

It will be interesting to see who signed the credit card receipt.  All the bail bondsmen I know require the owner of the credit card, if it's different from the person who comes in to sign the bond, to sign a separate form giving the person authorization to use their credit card.  They specifically do this so that the owner of the card doesn't try to say it was fraudulently used once they see the bill and/or have a falling out with the person.  I would be interested to see where this form is.  If there is one, there is a real good chance she's not guilty. 

The bad news for Mrs. Rice is that she's the one now sitting in jail with a bond of $2000 on her new charge of fraudulent use of a credit card.  Wonder if her husband will try to bond her out?  

If you've been charged with any theft crime, call us.  You may have a defense.  

Most people have watched enough television to know what Miranda rights are -

Although everyone has heard these rights, it is amazing to me, how many people waive them when the police come to "talk".

First of all, unless you are sitting in the back of a police car, or in a police station and YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE, you are not entitled to these rights.

Secondly, just because you were arrested doesn't mean the police have to read you your rights. If they're not planning on talking to you, there's no reason. I hear so many people say, "They never read me my rights." Thinking that in itself will get them out of the crime.

Please note, even if you were in custody AND no one read you your rights AND they questioned you - you still might not get out of it. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of your case. And the lawyer you hire. Just because the police didn't follow the rules, if your attorney doesn't file a MOTION TO SUPPRESS, it doesn't matter.

In a recent case out of Tampa, Florida - the police brought a man named Green into the station for questioning on several Dealing in Stolen Property charges. He was clearly in custody. They read him his rights and he said he wanted a lawyer. As happens more often than not - the cop told Green he couldn't get him a lawyer right this minute - it just didn't work that way. The cop continued to question Green who ultimately confessed. Although I realize this happens all the time, it's rarely on video tape for the court to witness.
The fact that there was a videotape of the confession was lucky for Green, because the Second DCA said his confession should have been thrown out since he "unequivocally" asked for a lawyer during questioning. See Green v. State, 2nd DCA, 9/9/11

If the cops want to question you about ANYTHING - even if you know you're completely innocent - ASK FOR A LAWYER - and stick to your guns. Don't let them bully or confuse you. Eventually it will become your word against theirs - and who do you think the prosecutors and judges will believe?

When one first hears about the crime of Dealing in Stolen Property, they might envision someone selling  car stereos out of the back of a truck.  Indeed that may be DSP, yet most of the cases we see involve a person taking an item to a pawnshop.  These cases are much easier to prove since they often follow a burglary.  So if items are missing from a home, police often check the nearest pawn shops for the items - more often than not, the items are there - and better yet for the police - whoever pawned the items left all their identifying information with the pawn broker.  Clearly a much easier crime to solve. 

Can you be convicted of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property? Like all things legal - it depends.  The law says that you can be charged with both, but not convicted of both - IF BOTH CRIMES ARISE OUT OF A SINGLE COURSE OF CONDUCT.  "A single course of conduct" is impossible to explain in this blog, and really depends on the facts of any given situation.

Interestingly, if you can be charged with both crimes - but not convicted - who gets to decide?  Since grand theft is usually a third degree felony (up to 5 yrs in prinson) and dealing in stolen property is usually a second degree felony (up to 15 years) should the "rule of lenity" apply?  That is, shouldn't you get the lesser sentence?  According to most courts in Florida, NO.

The Second District Court of Appeal, recently sent this question to the Supreme Court.  Since the legislature in the once again great wisdom never clarified that part, the Supreme Court now gets to decide.  In a case out of Tampa, Florida - Melvin Williams went to trial on both grand theft and dealing in stolen property (and a few other charges which aren't relevant to this).  He was convicted by the jury of both the grand theft and the DSP, and the judge dismissed the grand theft, but convicted him of the DSP.  He appealed his case, saying that the jury should have been instructed that they couldn't convict him on both as the statute says.  However, there's no standard jury instruction on this, and therefore no explaination to the jury of how to decide which crime to convict.  Arbitrary?  So the trial judge in this case, picked the greater crime and dismissed the lesser. 

The quickest fix to this arbitrary law seems to be to write a jury instruction to clarify things for the jury to choose.  Who gets to write these?  The Supreme Court.  There's a committee of lawyers that makes the reccomendations on jury instructions to the Supreme Court.  Since the legislature seems to be too concerned about baggy pants in school - I guess it's up to the lawyers to fix it.  Scary huh?

It seems like there are alot of stories in the news lately about employees stealing from their employers - and the employers don't recognize it until the amount is so high that the person charged will almost never be able to pay the money back. Grand Theft is a felony and the amount of time you might be subject to prison, depends on how much money was stolen.

There's the secretary of the lawyer in Pasco County, Florida who stole from the lawyer's clients.  She's already paid back $20,000 of the $70,000 missing but the victims want another $7,500 from her or she'll go to prison.  Her's is a second degree felony, because the amount was under $100,000 but greater than $20,000. (St. Petersburg Times 4/28/11)

There's the book keeper of the jewelry store in Dade City, Florida who took $15,000 plus from the owners.  That's a felony of the 3rd degree punishable by up to five years in prison.(St. Petersburg Times 4/30/11)

And there's the CFO of the infomercial genius Tony Little's company who took almost $600,000. (St. Pete Times 4/28/11) The guy apparently had a gambling problem.  Because the amount of theft is so high - that is over $100,000, he is being charged with a first degree felony grand theft - which is punishable by 30 years in prison. 

Not only do grand theft charges subject you to long prison sentences, you'll always be responsible for paying back the money - even when you get out of prison.  Plus, the court has the discretion to suspend your driver's license. 

If you've been charged with grand theft,  you need a lawyer - CALL US.