Theft Crimes Category Archives — Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog Published by Sarasota, Florida Criminal Lawyer — Hanlon Law

Florida Court Assesses Speedy Trial Rights in Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:55:47 +0000

Criminal defendants in federal court are protected both by the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. These protections require that the government bring charges and proceed to trial within specified time limits, unless continuances are properly justified and granted. When defendants believe their rights have been violated, they may move to dismiss the indictment or argue on appeal that delays undermined the fairness of the proceedings. A recent Florida decision issued in a robbery case illustrates the limits of such arguments, affirming that not all delays are attributable to the government and that defendants cannot obtain dismissal without showing actual prejudice. If you are charged with a theft crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested on state charges before being transferred to federal custody, at which point he was indicted for six counts of Hobbs Act robbery. Reportedly, the defendant’s trial began approximately fourteen months after his federal arrest and ten months after his indictment.

It is reported that the defendant attempted to preserve a claim under the Speedy Trial Act by filing a pro se motion to dismiss, even though he was represented by appointed counsel at the time. Under the Southern District of Florida’s local rules, defendants represented by counsel are not permitted to file pro se motions, and the district court later replaced the public defender with private counsel. However, the new attorney did not renew the motion to dismiss.

It is alleged that the delays in the case were due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicated grand jury proceedings and halted jury trials in the district court for a period. It is further reported that the defendant himself requested three continuances, which accounted for approximately seven months of the total delay. The jury convicted the defendant, after which he appealed.

Speedy Trial Claims

On appeal, the court reviewed both statutory and constitutional speedy trial arguments. Under the Speedy Trial Act, the court explained that a defendant must properly move to dismiss within the framework of the statute. Because the defendant’s pro se filing was invalid while he was represented by counsel, and because his subsequent counsel never filed such a motion, the right to dismissal under the Act was waived.

Turning to the Sixth Amendment, the court applied the four-factor balancing test from Barker v. Wingo: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. While the length of the fourteen-month delay was presumptively prejudicial, the second factor did not weigh against the government, since much of the delay was caused by pandemic-related court closures and the defendant’s own continuance requests.

Regarding the third factor, the court emphasized that although the defendant initially asserted his right, he later waived it when seeking continuances. Finally, on the fourth factor, the court concluded that the defendant was not actually prejudiced by the delay. Indeed, his continuances provided him more time to prepare his defense, and he could not identify any witnesses lost or evidence compromised. Accordingly, the court held there was no violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Meet with an Experienced Sarasota Theft Crime Defense Attorney About Your Case

If you are charged with a theft offense, including robbery or other violent offenses, you must be vigilant in preserving your statutory and constitutional rights, and it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney. The experienced Florida theft crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are committed to protecting clients’ rights and ensuring the government meets its obligations under the law. Contact our Sarasota office at 941-462-1789 or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation today.

The post Florida Court Assesses Speedy Trial Rights in Criminal Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Vacates Grand Theft Conviction

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:34:21 +0000

Under Florida law, theft charges carry significant legal consequences, particularly when the value of the property allegedly stolen elevates the crime to grand theft. In such cases, the prosecution must prove each element of the offense, including the market value of the stolen items, beyond a reasonable doubt. A recent Florida decision highlights the importance of this requirement, as the court vacated a defendant’s grand theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of property value. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney regarding your potential defenses as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant was charged with grand theft from a dwelling in a Florida court. Allegedly, during the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant stole property from a residence, claiming that the value of the stolen items exceeded $100. The trial court found the defendant guilty of grand theft. However, it is alleged that the defense argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish the market value of the stolen items, a necessary element to uphold the grand theft conviction. The defendant subsequently appealed the conviction, asserting that the trial court erred in finding the value of the stolen property exceeded the statutory threshold for grand theft.

Elements of Theft Offenses

On appeal, the court reviewed the case and the trial record, focusing on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grand theft conviction. It is reported that the State conceded that it failed to present adequate evidence to prove that the market value of the stolen items exceeded $100, a requirement for a grand theft conviction under Florida law.

The court emphasized the legal standard for evaluating the sufficiency of evidence claims, which requires the evidence to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Nonetheless, the court determined that even under this standard, the State’s failure to provide sufficient proof of the value of the stolen items rendered the grand theft conviction unsustainable.

Florida law distinguishes between grand theft and petit theft based on the market value of the property at the time of the alleged crime. The court noted that the lack of evidence regarding market value left the grand theft conviction unsupported as a matter of law. Consequently, the court vacated the grand theft conviction, reducing it to petit theft, which does not require proof of property value exceeding $100. The court remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing based on the reduced charge.

Consult a Skilled Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

Criminal charges, especially those involving theft, can have significant legal and personal consequences. If you are charged with a theft crime, you should consult an attorney to evaluate your case and advocate on your behalf. The skilled Sarasota theft crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are prepared to assist you in defending against criminal charges and pursuing the best possible outcome in your case. Contact Hanlon Law via our online form or by calling 941.462.1789 to arrange a meeting.

The post Florida Court Vacates Grand Theft Conviction appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Sentences in Medicaid Fraud Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Sat, 13 Jul 2024 02:46:38 +0000

Although white-collar crimes are not implicitly violent, they are often harshly penalized due to the financial losses they frequently cause. It is not uncommon for convictions for such offenses to result in years of imprisonment, as demonstrated in a recent Florida Medicaid theft case in which the court ultimately rejected the defendant’s challenge to his sentence. If you are accused of theft, it is prudent to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense lawyer about your options for seeking a positive outcome.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant worked for a company that provided medical billing and credentialing services, giving him access to financial, medical provider, and patient information. He was tasked with submitting claims to Florida Medicaid for services rendered by a specific physician. Between February 2017 and October 2018, the defendant allegedly submitted around 1,700 fraudulent claims, resulting in a payment of over $2.25 million. The defendant did not report or underreported these fraudulent earnings to the IRS, leading to a total tax loss of close to $800,000 over the tax years 2017-2019. Additionally, from April 2019 to September 2019, the defendant worked for another company, diverting over $55,000 into his personal account and underreporting this income on his 2019 tax return.

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to multiple counts of defrauding a healthcare benefits program, aggravated identity theft, and failing to file an income tax return, as well as a count of filing a fraudulent tax return. A presentence investigation report grouped his offenses into two main categories: healthcare fraud and tax offenses, with separate adjustments for each group’s offense level. The district court sentenced the defendant to a total of 65 months’ imprisonment, with a three-year term of supervised release and a set of standard conditions for supervised release, including Standard Condition 12, which the defendant did not object to initially. The defendant then appealed his sentence.

Sentences in Medicaid Fraud Cases

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence. The court first addressed the defendant’s argument that his fraud and tax offenses should have been grouped together under certain provisions of the sentencing guidelines, which he claimed would have resulted in a lower offense level. The court found that the language of the provision in question was ambiguous and referred to the guidelines’ commentary and previous case law to resolve this ambiguity.

In doing so, the court ultimately determined that the fraud and tax offenses were not of the same general type and involved different victims (Medicaid and the IRS, respectively) and that the offenses were factually distinct and involved independent behaviors. Therefore, the court upheld the district court’s decision not to group these offenses together.

The defendant also challenged Standard Condition 12 of his supervised release as an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority, arguing it improperly allowed the probation officer to determine whether he must notify third parties of any risk he might pose. The appellate court reviewed this argument for plain error, given that the defendant did not object to this condition at sentencing.

The court found that the condition did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation because it merely allowed the probation officer to manage the details of notification rather than determine whether the defendant was subject to the condition itself. Thus, the appellate court found no plain error in the imposition of Standard Condition 12. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the sentencing and the conditions of supervised release imposed on the defendant.

Meet with an Experienced Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney.

If you are charged with a theft crime, it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney to evaluate your potential defenses. The experienced Sarasota theft defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and advise you of your options for seeking the best outcome available. You can reach Hanlon Law via our online form or by calling 941.462.1789 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Sentences in Medicaid Fraud Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Crimes Committed Through Alternative Acts

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 13 Dec 2023 00:49:33 +0000

There are numerous statutes and rulings that prevent criminal defendants from unjust convictions. For example, in many cases, a unanimous jury verdict is necessary to convict a person of a crime. When a single offense can be committed through alternative acts, though, unanimity is not necessary, as explained in a recent Florida ruling issued in a petit theft case. If you are accused of theft, it is in your best interest to meet with a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney about your rights.

Case Background

Allegedly, in July 2021, the victim contacted the police to report a break-in at her apartment by the defendant. The two had a prior romantic relationship. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with six crimes, including petit theft. The petit theft charge pertained to the defendant allegedly obtaining or using the victim’s purse and/or wallet, intending to deprive her of the property.

Reportedly, during the trial, the victim testified that the defendant forcibly entered her apartment, demanding his phone and wallet. Despite her denial and attempts to show she didn’t possess his belongings, the defendant took her purse, containing the phone, wallet, and medication. The trial court instructed the jury to determine whether the defendant knowingly obtained the victim’s purse or wallet, and the jury found him guilty of petit theft, valuing the stolen property at less than $750. The defendant appealed.

Convictions for Crimes Committed Through Alternative Acts

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have required the jury to unanimously decide whether he stole the purse, the wallet, or both. The court applied a fundamental error standard since this argument was raised for the first time on appeal. The core issue was whether unanimity was necessary when a single offense could be committed through alternative acts. The court referred to Florida’s requirement of jury unanimity for a verdict and cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s stance on cases involving alternative acts, asserting that jurors need not agree on a single means of commission.

The court differentiated the subject case from those involving separate offenses, emphasizing that unanimity is required in such instances. In the subject case, as the alleged theft of the purse and/or wallet occurred as part of a single continuous act against the same victim, the court concluded that no fundamental error had occurred. As such, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence, stating that the jury was not obligated to unanimously agree on the alternative means of committing the single offense of petit theft.

Meet with a Capable Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

The prosecution faces a significant burden of proof in theft crime cases and, in many instances, must convince all jurors of a defendant’s guilt in order to obtain a conviction. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is smart to meet with an attorney to assess your potential defenses. The capable Sarasota theft crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can assess the facts of your case and aid you in pursuing the best outcome available. You can contact Hanlon Law by calling 941-462-1789 or using the form online to arrange a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Crimes Committed Through Alternative Acts appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Court Examines Evidence of Prior Crimes in Florida Criminal Trials

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 05 Jul 2023 18:04:37 +0000

In federal criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution can rely on direct or circumstantial evidence to establish its case. Generally, however, it cannot introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions to demonstrate they committed the offense they currently are charged with, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court granted the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude evidence of his prior convictions in a carjacking case. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is wise to meet with a Sarasota criminal defense attorney to discuss what evidence the government may be permitted to use against you.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with brandishing a firearm during a carjacking. Prior to trial, the prosecution indicated that it intended to introduce evidence of the defendant’s three prior convictions: a 2009 conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and possession of other weapons and two convictions from 2018 and 2022 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The prosecution argued that these prior convictions were admissible in the current case to demonstrate that the defendant’s alleged brandishing of a firearm during the offense was done “knowingly and intentionally” and was not a result of a mistake or accident.

Evidence of Prior Crimes in Florida Criminal Trials

Reportedly, in response, the defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude such evidence on the grounds that it only served to portray the defendant as having a bad character. The defendant noted that in United States v. Gray, a similar case, the district court allowed the introduction of the defendant’s prior convictions for armed carjacking, armed robbery, and car burglary. However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence under a “lack-of-accident-or-mistake theory.”

Further, he argued that, like in the Gray case, his defense as not that he accidentally brandished a firearm while committing a carjacking but rather that he was not the person who committed the carjacking. Therefore, he contended that the prior convictions should not be admitted as they would invite propensity reasoning that the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit.

The court noted that the prosecution cited cases in which the Eleventh Circuit upheld the admission of prior firearm-related convictions in subsequent firearm-related prosecutions. Those cases, however, dealt with charges of “being a felon in possession of a firearm” and whether such possession was knowing, which was not the issue in the subject case. Thus, the court ultimately adopted the defendant’s reasoning and granted his motion in limine, barring the prosecution from introducing evidence of his prior convictions.

Talk to a Seasoned Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

A defendant’s criminal history should not be used to establish their guilt in a subsequent criminal proceeding, and if it is, the defendant may have grounds for vacating their conviction. If you are charged with a theft offense, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your options. The seasoned Sarasota theft crime defense lawyers of Hanlon Law have ample experience helping people protect their rights in criminal matters, and if you hire them, they will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach Hanlon Law by calling 941-462-1789 or using the online form to set up a meeting.

The post Court Examines Evidence of Prior Crimes in Florida Criminal Trials appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Explains Grounds for Downward Departure Sentences

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 13 Jan 2023 23:31:17 +0000

The Florida legislature enacted statutory guidelines that the courts use when sentencing people convicted of violating state law. Sentencing courts have discretion, however, and can deliver downward departure sentences if they believe they are warranted under the circumstances. Recently, a Florida court examined when a downward departure sentence is appropriate in a burglary case in which it ultimately reversed a downward departure sentence on the grounds that it was not supported by competent evidence. If you were charged with burglary or any other theft offense, it is wise to talk to a Sarasota theft crime defense attorney about your possible defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that he was charged with grand theft and burglary of an occupied dwelling in 2019 following an incident in which he drove a co-defendant to a residence, waited while the codefendant broke a window and entered the home, and then drove the co-defendant away. They were later stopped with $15,000 worth of jewelry that had been taken from the home.

Reportedly, while the defendant was awaiting trial for the subject charges, he was convicted of other charges of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. The defendant then moved for a downward departure in the subject case, arguing that the offenses were committed in an unsophisticated manner and were isolated incidents. The court granted the defendant’s motion over the State’s objection, and the State appealed.

Grounds for Delivering a Downward Departure Sentence

On appeal, the court reversed the trial court ruling. In reviewing a downward departure sentence, a court must examine whether the trial court applied the right rule of law and whether there is substantial and competent evidence supporting the trial court’s decision to impose a downward departure sentence.

In evaluating the evidence relied upon by the trial court, the court must assess the sufficiency, instead of the weight, of the evidence. Further, if the court finds that the trial court’s reason for the downward departure complies with the law and is supported by adequate evidence, it must then assess whether the downward departure sentence was the most appropriate sentencing option for the defendant after weighing a totality of the evidence.

There are numerous factors the court should examine when conducting its assessment, including whether the offense was an isolated incident committed in an unsophisticated manner for which the defendant expressed remorse. In the subject case, the trial court found that the defendant expressed remorse but did not find that his crimes were unsophisticated or that they were isolated incidents. Thus, the court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Talk to an Experienced Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney

While the courts have the authority to deviate from the sentencing guidelines in some cases, people convicted of other theft crimes are often sentenced to lengthy terms of confinement. If you are accused of burglary or any other theft offense, it is prudent to meet with an attorney to evaluate your options. The experienced Sarasota criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can inform you of your rights and help you to seek the best legal result available under the circumstances. You can contact Hanlon Law through the online form or by calling 941-462-1789 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Explains Grounds for Downward Departure Sentences appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Court Discusses Grounds for Granting a Downward Departure Sentence in Florida

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:35:33 +0000

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered many aspects of criminal cases. For example, many criminal trials were delayed or conducted remotely, and some prisoners were able to obtain compassionate release due to the risk of contracting the coronavirus. As discussed in a recent Florida opinion issued in a theft case, though, COVID-19, in and of itself, is not a sufficient reason to grant a downward departure sentence. If you are accused of a theft offense, it is prudent to meet with a trusted Sarasota theft crime defense attorney to assess your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with felony petit theft for taking sunglasses from a store without paying. He failed to appear at a hearing, and the charges against him were amended to include a charge for failure to appear. He was arrested and spent ten months in jail. At a hearing for pretrial release, his attorney requested the lowest permitted sentence of fifty-five months in prison. The State rejected the offer, citing his extensive criminal history.

Reportedly, the trial court asked the state to confirm the lowest permissible sentence, then proposed that if the defendant pled guilty, it would issue a downward departure sentence due to COVID-19. The state objected, but the court sentenced the defendant to two years of probation. The state appealed.

Grounds for Granting a Downward Departure Sentence

On appeal, the state argued that there were no legitimate statutory or non-statutory mitigating factors that supported a downward departure sentence. Specifically, it argued that a generalized fear of COVID-19 was not a valid reason for the departure and the trial court’s assertion that the crime was de minimus contradicted the sentencing policy developed by the legislature.

The appellate court agreed, stating that trial courts cannot depart from the lowest allowed sentence unless there are factors or circumstances that reasonably justify the downward departure. Florida Statute section 921.026 sets forth numerous non-exclusive mitigating factors the courts might consider as grounds for issuing a downward departure sentence. The courts can issue downward departure sentences for reasons other than those listed, though, as long as the reason is supported by substantial, competent evidence and is not otherwise barred.

Prior to departing, though, a court must assess whether the defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a valid reason to depart. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the defendant failed to meet this burden. As such, the departed sentence was improper.

Meet with a Trusted Sarasota Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Florida courts consider numerous factors when determining a criminal sentence, and a conviction for a seemingly minor theft crime could result in a substantial prison term. If you are accused of a theft offense, it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The trusted Sarasota criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and aid you in seeking the best legal outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can contact Hanlon Law via the online form or by calling at 941-462-1789 to set up a conference.

The post Court Discusses Grounds for Granting a Downward Departure Sentence in Florida appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Double Jeopardy Violations in a Fraud Case

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 09 Aug 2021 22:30:51 +0000

When people suffer personal tragedies, their friends and families will often set up fundraisers to help them deal with the financial ramifications of their losses. What starts as a kind-hearted gesture may lead to criminal charges, though, if the funds collected are not properly disbursed. While numerous charges could potentially arise out of the mishandling of charitable donations, a person cannot be convicted multiple times for the same offense. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court agreed with the defendant’s assertion that her convictions for fraud and organized scheme to defraud violated her right against double jeopardy. If you are charged with a fraud offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a skillful Sarasota criminal defense attorney to assess your potential defenses.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant and her husband were struggling financially. Her husband was a firefighter, and after two other firefighters were killed and a third firefighter’s daughter died, the defendant organized a benefit to raise money for the three families. It is estimated that between tickets sold at the door and prior to the benefit, the defendant gathered in excess of $28,000 dollars.

Reportedly, cash donations were made during the benefit as well. The bulk of the money was never given to the families, however. Eventually, the police investigated the incident and charged the defendant with multiple crimes, including grand theft and an organized scheme to defraud. A jury convicted her, after which she appealed.

Double Jeopardy Violations

On appeal, the defendant argued that her convictions for organized schemes to defraud and grand theft violated her protections against double jeopardy as they arose out of the same conduct. The court agreed with her and vacated her conviction for grand theft. The court explained that grand theft is a lesser included offense of the crime of organized scheme to defraud. In order to convict the defendant of both crimes, then the State was required to prove that each charge arose out of different conduct.

Notably, however, a court conducting a double-jeopardy analysis will look solely at the charging document, and its conclusion cannot be based on evidence produced at trial. If a court is unable to determine from charging documents whether a jury could have convicted the defendant of multiple crimes based on the same conduct, the convictions violate double jeopardy.

In the subject case, the information charged the defendant with grand theft and organized scheme to defraud families beginning February 17, 2017, and continuing through September 17, 2017. The dates and victims for each crime were identical. Further, theft was a necessarily included offense of organized scheme to defraud. Thus, the court reversed the conviction for grand theft.

Confer with an Experienced Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

Fraud crimes often come with significant penalties like lengthy jail sentences and substantial fines. If you are charged with a fraud or theft offense, it is advisable to confer with an attorney who can advise you of your rights. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced Sarasota fraud defense lawyer with the knowledge and skills needed to help you seek a just outcome, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Hanlon through the online form or at 941-462-1789 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Double Jeopardy Violations in a Fraud Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Court Discusses Grounds for Awarding Restitution Under Florida Law

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:29:49 +0000

In many instances in which a criminal defendant is convicted of a crime, the court will not only sentence the person to jail time or probation but will also order him or her to pay restitution costs. A court may not order restitution without basis, however. Rather, as discussed in a recent Florida theft case, certain factors must be present for a restitution award to be valid. If you are accused of committing a theft crime, it is smart to consult a skillful Sarasota theft crime defense attorney to evaluate your rights.

The Alleged Crime and Restitution Award

It is reported that the defendant was charged with three counts of dealing in stolen property, giving a pawn shop owner false verification of ownership, and other crimes. He entered a guilty plea to all charges. Following his sentencing, he challenged an award of restitution for a stolen diamond bracelet, arguing that as he was not charged with stealing the bracelet and the item was not within the original charge of dealing in stolen property, his guilty plea did not constitute an agreement to pay for it. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the award.

Grounds for Awarding Restitution Under Florida Law

Under Florida law, if a defendant challenges a restitution award, the court must assess whether the damage or loss the defendant has been ordered to pay for is both causally related to and bears a substantial relationship to the crime. In order for a restitution award to be causally connected to a crime, it must arise out of the crime for which the defendant was actually charged. Additionally, if a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, his agreement is limited to restitution for the charged crime, as reflected by the information or the factual basis for the plea that was set forth by the State when the plea was entered.

A court will examine discovery materials and arrest affidavits to determine whether the items for which restitution was ordered were listed as part of the factual basis for entering the plea. The court explained that, essentially, the issue that must be examined in restitution challenges is whether the defendant had notice he would be asked to pay for an item.

In the subject case, the court explained that the defendant’s arrest warrant alleged that he committed grand theft in addition to the offenses with which he was charged. Further, the arrest affidavit stated that the defendant admitted to stealing the items he pawned and items the victim listed as missing, including the diamond bracelet. Thus, the court found that the defendant had sufficient notice that the bracelet could be a compensable restitution item, and affirmed the restitution award.

Speak to a Trusted Sarasota Attorney

If you are faced with theft charges, it is in your best interest to retain an attorney to assist you in your defense. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a trusted Sarasota theft crime defense attorney with the knowledge and experience needed to help you fight to retain your rights, and he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Hanlon at 941-462-1789 or through the form online to schedule a meeting.

[sc_fs_multi_faq headline-0=”h2″ question-0=”Does it help me to be cooperative with the police?” answer-0=”No. If you’re the suspect in an investigation, nothing you offer to law enforcement is ultimately going to help your case or prevent you from getting formally charged. It can only hurt you. Before speaking to the police, it is always important to consult with an experienced criminal attorney. Many times what you tell the police officer does not end up in his report. You should remember that every law enforcement officer has an agenda, and what actually ends up in their report is often an interpretation of what you tell them. Many times that interpretation is used by the law enforcement officer to support their decision to arrest you. ” image-0=”” headline-1=”h2″ question-1=”If I have a warrant out for my arrest should I contact law enforcement? ” answer-1=”Before contacting law enforcement you should always discuss the circumstances surrounding your arrest warrant with an experienced criminal attorney. We may be able to dismiss your charge and your warrant and avoid your arrest. ” image-1=”” headline-2=”h2″ question-2=”How do I know the lawyer I retain is doing everything possible to properly defend the allegations against me?” answer-2=”First, you should make sure that you retain a criminal defense attorney you trust. Before you retain an attorney, spend the time you feel is necessary to gain that level of trust. Second, you should keep in regular communication with your attorney to discuss the steps they are taking in order to bring about the best possible result in your case. ” image-2=”” count=”3″ html=”true” css_class=””]

The post Court Discusses Grounds for Awarding Restitution Under Florida Law appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.