Theft & Robbery

THEFT & ROBBERY

State v. S;  January 15, 2008

FACTS:  This juvenile client was charged with Burglary of an Unoccupied Residence, and Grand Theft in the first degree.  Allegedly, he and two co-defendants, burglarized the home of the victim.  The officer's report indicated that our client drove the co-defendants to the home of the victim where they broke in through a sliding glass door.  Once in the home they took $30,000.00 from inside the master bedroom. 

DEFENSE:  The defendant never admitted to breaking and entering into the home, and the evidence placing him inside the home was lacking.

RESULT:  The State "no-filed" (dismissed) the burglary charge and the grand theft charge.   

State v. C; Judge: Tom Barber; Date: July 27, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was walking through Sweetbay Supermarket on Dale Mabry Highway with his mother. His mother had just been through a recent divorce, and had no money to pay for any items. The Sweetbay manager saw the defendant, and his mother both loading the items from the grocery cart, into his car. The officer reported to the client's house after getting his tag number from the manager. After reading Miranda to the client and his mother the officer took their statements. According to the officer's report, "the defendant said he was unsure if his mother had paid for the groceries, but that he knew she did not have any money to pay for the items they selected." As a result of his statement, both he and his mother were arrested. The client's mother pled guilty to the theft, and her son pled not guilty.

DEFENSE: The law in the state of Florida with regard to principal or accomplice liability is fairly straightforward.

A defendant will be treated as if he did all the acts performed by the others involved in the perpetration of a crime if:(1) the defendant had a conscious intent that the crime be done, and (2) the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and did incite, cause, encourage, or advise another person to actually commit the crime. Charles v. State, 945 So.2d 579, (4th DCA 2006). In our case, the State Attorney could prove that our client was present in the store, and that he wasn't sure if his Mom had money to buy the items. That is not enough. The State had no information proving that the defendant had the "intent" that the crime be done, and really no reliable information that the client incited or encouraged his mother in any way.

RESULT: The State dismissed the charges on the day of trial.

State v. H; Judge: Lamar Battles; Date: July 17, 2007

FACTS: Our client's brother found a number of cigarette cartons, and decided to hide them at the client's home. It was illegal to be in possession of the cigarette cartons in that they didn't have the Florida Tax Stamp. A confidential informant became aware of the cigarette's when the defendant's brother tried to sell him a few hundred cartons. ATF agents along with the Tampa Police Department set up a buy and caught one the suspects involved in the actual theft of the cigarettes. The first suspect gave information to police, which in-turn led to the discovery of the cigarettes in our client's home.

DEFENSE: Our client had no knowledge of the illicit nature of the cigarettes, and was not involved in their sale in any way.

RESULT: The State Dismissed the charge shortly before trial.

Case Number: 05-23953; Judge Timothy Peters; September 21, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was alleged to have stolen a large amount of money from the victim.  The victim was supposed to have received money from an electronic transfer into her bank account.   The victim's money was transferred into the defendant's account, and the bank alleged that they notified defendant of this mistake.  The bank claimed the defendant kept the money even after receiving notice that the victim was the rightful owner of the money.  

DEFENSE:  The bank never provided any documentation to the defendant showing the money was the victim's property.

RESULT:  The State dismissed the charge.