Petite Larceny

Published on: December 12, 2012

Court Discusses Grand Larceny vs. Petit Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A man knocked on an apartment door. He claimed to be delivering something for the resident in the apartment. He asked the resident for some personal identification. The resident of the apartment left the apartment door open and left the man at the door while she went inside the apartment to get her ID. A New York Criminal Lawyer with the apartment door left open, a television set can be seen which was put on a stand situated very near the open apartment door. On the floor near the television, there were sweaters scattered all over. The man took the TV and the sweaters on the floor.

The man was seen by another delivery man who was making a delivery in a nearby apartment at the same time. He saw the bogus delivery man go inside the apartment and leave holding the TV set and the sweaters. He also saw the bogus delivery man leave the apartment and ride a bike while carrying the TV set and the sweaters. The delivery man followed the bogus delivery man and saw that at the nearest corner, the bogus delivery man dropped the TV and the sweaters. He left them there on the street where they fell. And he rode the bike all the way to a nearby restaurant. At the restaurant premises, the bogus delivery man left the bike. He went to the parking area of the restaurant and rode in a car. The delivery man wrote down the license plate of the bogus delivery man’s car. When a police cruiser came by, the delivery man told them his story and gave them the license plate of the bogus delivery man. He also led them to the spot where the TV and the sweaters were dropped.

The bogus delivery man was later arrested. He was charged with two crimes in one information: he was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The bogus delivery man moved for a trial without a jury. The man was convicted with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny but he was convicted only of petit larceny and not grand larceny because the prosecution failed to prove that the properties taken were valued beyond $100.

Published on: December 11, 2012

Court Distinguishes Between Petit Larceny and Felony Petit Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

The state charged appellant with armed robbery and resisting a merchant. The jury found her guilty of the lesser included offense of petit theft and resisting a merchant. The trial court adjudicated her guilty of the two misdemeanors. At sentencing, however, the court reclassified her conviction pursuant to section 812.014(2)(c), based on her prior theft convictions. A West Palm Beach Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, appellant stipulated at pretrial that she had nine prior misdemeanor convictions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the information, however, did not make reference to the prior convictions, nor did it charge her with a felony petit theft. On that ground, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it reclassified her petit theft conviction to felony petit theft.

The issue in this case is whether the Court erred in reclassifying appellant’s conviction of petit theft to felony petit theft (petit larceny).

Ina 1991 case, the court stated: A charging document must provide adequate notice of the alleged essential facts the defendant must defend against. In recognition of this concern, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(b) provides that an “indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” The Court then referred to its prior opinion in a 1978 case: the Justice concluded for the Court that the felony petit larceny statute “creates a substantive offense and is thus distinguishable from section 775.084, the habitual criminal offender statute.” The felony DUI statute is indistinguishable in this regard. The Court concludes that the existence of three or more prior DUI convictions is an essential fact constituting the substantive offense of felony DUI. Having established that the existence of prior DUI convictions is an essential element of felony DUI, it necessarily follows that the requisite notice of prior DUI convictions must be given in the charging document.

Published on: December 5, 2012

Court Looks at Intent to Commit Petit Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A man went to a house in a residential neighborhood. It was eleven thirty in the evening and all the three residents of the house were fast asleep. The man went up the roof and was preparing to enter the house through a bedroom with an open screened window.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said tne resident of the house was fast asleep in the bedroom as the man was trying to enter through the screen window. The noise made by the man outside the window woke the resident of the house. He had a .25 caliber hand gun in a drawer in his bedside table. He cried aloud and said “Who’s there?” When the man crouched down in an attempt to hide, the occupant fired a warning shot.

Another occupant called an emergency hotline and the man was unable to get down from the roof until the police got there. The man was charged with attempted breaking entering with intent to commit grand larceny. It was alleged that the three occupants in the house had cell phones, laptop computers and other valuables inside the house which could have been what the prowler intended to take.

Published on: December 3, 2012

Court Discusses Lesser Included Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. He was convicted of the lesser included offense of breaking and entering or entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He appeals the judgment and sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man recognizes that the court, when confronted with such a verdict and judgment, remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment and sentence on the lesser of the included offenses referred to in the verdict. He requests that the Court reconsider such previous ruling. It has subsequently developed, however, that the District Court of Appeal has overruled and receded. Upon consideration of the opinion, the Court agrees with the general reasoning but go a step further. The Court of Appeal construes the crime of breaking and entering or entering without breaking as a single crime rather than two different crimes.

The information charged three elements including unlawful breaking, unlawful entry and the intent to commit petit larceny. The jury found the man guilty of two of the three elements set forth in the accusatory pleading by finding that he had made an unlawful entry with intent to commit petit larceny. These two elements constitute a crime just as surely as did the three elements charged. By all standards entering without breaking seems to meet the definition of a category necessarily included offense to breaking and entering.

Published on: December 2, 2012

Defendant Contends Court Lacks Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, appellant was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of West Palm Beach County for grand larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, he was arraigned on the information and entered a plea of not guilty. At the beginning of the trial, which was held before the trial judge without a jury, the county solicitor made the announcement in open court and said that: ‘In this case, the State is going to attempt to prove petit larceny and not grand larceny.’ A West Palm Beach Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, after this announcement the county solicitor submitted evidence to prove that the charge contained in the information constituted petit larceny; and the trial court found the defendant to be guilty of petit larceny. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction was rendered and the defendant, as a result, appealed to this Court.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that, the Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal for a misdemeanor conviction. A West Palm Beach Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant contends that inasmuch as the information upon which the defendant was arraigned charged a felony this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

The issue in this case is whether the appeal of the appellant should be dismissed on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal for a misdemeanor conviction.

Published on: October 19, 2012

Court Discusses Due Process Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, petitioner fired several shots into the home of an African-American family and made a statement which he later retracted that he did not want the family in his neighborhood because of their race. A New Jersey Criminal Lawyer said that, he was charged under New Jersey law with, second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, (possession of a weapon), which carries a prison term of 5 to 10 years. The count did not refer to the State’s hate crime statute, which provides for an enhanced sentence if a trial judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the crime with a purpose to intimidate a person or group because of, inter alia, race. After petitioner pleaded guilty, a New York Criminal Lawyer said that the prosecutor filed a motion to enhance the sentence. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was racially motivated and sentenced petitioner to a 12-year term on the firearms count. In upholding the sentence, the appeals court rejected petitioner’s claim that the Due Process Clause requires that a bias finding be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The State Supreme Court affirmed.

The issue in this case is whether petitioner has been denied of his right to due process.

The Court held that the Constitution requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Published on: October 18, 2012

Defendant Says Court Failed to Instruct the Jury Properly

by Stephen Bilkis

Appellant was charged with and convicted of robbery of property having a value of less than $100. He raises four points on appeal, one of which requires discussion and reversal. A Palm Beach Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, although the evidence presented at trial would have supported a conviction of petit larceny, appellant’s request for a jury instruction on that crime was denied. In a 1979 case, the Court held that larceny is necessarily included in the crime of robbery and that it is legally impossible to prove robbery without proving larceny.

The issue in this case is whether appellant is entitled to the reversal of his conviction for robbery.

The Court held that the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510 expressly requires the trial court to charge the jury on any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. Appellee concedes it was an error not to do so, but argues the error was harmless. The Supreme Court held that it is reversible error per se not to instruct on the next immediate lesser included offense, while it may be harmless error not to instruct on an offense two steps removed from the offense charged. In reference to the charge sub judice “the determination of whether the refusal to instruct on larceny was reversible error would depend upon an application of the case to the facts of what transpired in the trial court.” Here, a New York Criminal Lawyer said there was neither charge nor evidence of property having a value of $100 or more. Consequently, petit larceny was the next immediate lesser included offense and the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct on said crime.

Published on: October 15, 2012

Defendants Claim Insufficient Evidence in Theft Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was adjudicated delinquent on the charge of petit larceny of items valued at $100 or more but less than $300, a first degree misdemeanor. Although the State presented evidence about the items taken, it offered no evidence of their value. The petitioner failed to object, however, or to move for judgment of acquittal on this ground. The petitioner raised the claim for the first time on appeal, asserting fundamental error. The Fourth District held that the issue must be preserved for appeal. Similarly, in the conflict case, another petitioner argued for the first time on appeal that a delinquent adjudication for first-degree petit theft must be reduced to second-degree because the State failed to prove the value of the stolen items. The Second District Court of Appeal, relying on a similar case decision receded from on other grounds concluded that the failure of proof on the essential element of value was fundamental error and reversed.

In a similar case, the opponents were convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. As did the petitioner, on appeal they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction on the element of the value of the property stolen. The opponents contended that the State thus failed to present a legitimate case and that it constituted fundamental error. A New York Criminal Lawyer said citing a line of prior decisions, the court rejected the argument and held that unless the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict in a criminal case is first presented to the trial court by way of an appropriate motion, the issue is not reviewable on direct appeal from an adverse judgment. Because the issue was not preserved, the court held that it was not open to appellate review.

After resolving the conflict issue presented, the Court turned to the petitioners’ contention that there was fundamental error committed as to them in that they were convicted of grand larceny when the State’s evidence did not support a conviction of grand larceny. Again, the petitioners claimed that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the value of the items stolen. The court reviewed the record and held that the evidence was insufficient to support a grand larceny conviction. The court reversed for entry of a petit larceny conviction.

Published on: October 14, 2012

Court Discusses Petit Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

An accused man filed for an appeal from a final judgment of his conviction and a sentence of three years probation entered by a jury decision finding him guilty of two counts of grand larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the district court however reviewed the record and reveals that the man’s opponent did not show, as set forth in the information, that the property specifically a hubcaps at the time it was stolen had a fair market value of one hundred dollars or more.

The man was charged with three counts of grand larceny and the trial court granted a directed decision of acquittal as to one of the counts. The remaining two counts charged the accused man with unlawfully and feloniously stealing of hubcaps (petit larceny), valued at $100 or more, from the lawful custody of a man and a woman. With a three day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the two counts. After that, the trial court entered a final decision of conviction and sentence the man of three years probation from which he brought the appeal.

The man contends that his opponent failed to prove by competent substantial evidence, as to one of the counts, the ownership of the stolen property and, as to both of the counts, that the fair market value of the property was $100 or more at the time it was stolen.

Published on: October 12, 2012

Court Discusses Constitutionality of Prison Reforms Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The case refers to an appeal submitted by the Texas prison officials for the denial of their motions to terminate prospective relief by the district court.

The relevant facts and procedural background of the case has transpired for almost 30 years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that several criminal inmates filed claims against the director of the Texas correction facilities for malpractice and a violation of former’s civil and constitutional rights in the conduct of detention conditions and practices.

In 1992, judgment was rendered by the court. Several years have passed, the defendants filed a motion to vacate said judgment and a month later a law was enacted by Congress in relation to prison litigation reforms. Under the new law, “federal courts may grant or terminate prospective relief in prison litigation subject to certain standards and they may also refuse to terminate prospective relief only upon specific findings regarding the continued necessity of such relief.” This was the basis used by the corrections board of Texas, who seek to terminate the prospective relief of the judgment against their favor.