Theft & Robbery

THEFT & ROBBERY

Tampa Attorney Gets Robbery Charge Dismissed

State v. R; Judge Sleet

FACTS: Our client was charged with robbery, a second degree felony, in March of 1985. The charging document for the offense was filed in March of 1986. Before being prosecuted, however, our client was arrested in Colorado for an unrelated criminal offense. Due to the client's absence from the state of Florida before being subject to prosecution (having received a multi-year prison sentence in Colorado), the state of Florida issued a warrant (capias) on the charging document for our client's arrest. This would essentially allow the state more time to gain custody of the client and bring the client in for prosecution. After serving the Colorado sentence and being released from police custody in Colorado, the client was again arrested there on December 28, 2007, on an unrelated charge. The client was then extradited to Florida pursuant to the outstanding warrant for robbery that had been issued 21 years prior to this arrest. At this point the client contacted our firm.

DEFENSE: The statutes of limitation that apply in a given case are those that were in effect at the time the incidents occurred that gave rise to the criminal charges. Section 775.15 of the Florida Statutes in 1985 provided in pertinent part that "a prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within four (4) years after it is committed." It further provided that, "a prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within three (3) years after it is committed." Because our client was being charged with a second degree felony in this case, the limitation of three years was applicable. Section 775.15(5) (1985), reads, "a prosecution is commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay. A capias was issued in this case in 1986.

Also, because our client had been out-of-state during that time, Section 775.15(6) of Florida Statutes would apply. In 1985, that section stated, "the period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than three (3) years."

Our firm attacked our client's charge on two statute of limitations grounds. The first was that the capias was not executed "without unreasonable delay." Though our client was in fact in the Colorado prison system, and therefore many miles away from Florida prosecution, our client sent a letter to Florida officials, asking to be extradited. The state did not respond to this request, despite knowing exactly where to find our client at that point. Because of this, we were able to argue that the state did not at all pursue the capias on the information "without unreasonable delay." Another ground for dismissal of this case was that Section 775.15(6) F.S. (1985) provided that the period of limitation in no case could be extended by more than three years. Here, our client was arrested a full 21 years after the filing of the information.

RESULT: Because the state knew of our client's presence in the Colorado prison system, and failed to extradite our client pursuant to the capias issued, the charge was dismissed.

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.