Theft Crimes Case Results (Part 2)

Internal Reference # 1072

Facts : The defendant was charged with Petit Theft

Result: The defendant had already used Mr. Foley’s services on a case prior to this one. Mr. Foley negotiated with the state and had the charge withheld. The defendant was given 6 months of probation plus court cost. This was considered a major win because the defendant had already had a similar prior charge. No Prison, No Jail, No Conviction.


Internal Reference # 1074

Facts : Officer P who being first duly sworn deposes and says that on January 6 th at the crime location the defendant committed the offense charged and the Facts showing probable cause to believe same are as follows:

The above defendant went into the above location and placed a Compaq computer ($548.00) and a camera bag ($7.33) into the defendant’s shopping cart. The defendant proceeded to walk past all points of purchase and walked out of the store. The incident was recorded on surveillance tape and a copy was placed into evidence. A search incident arrest, Officer B found a small blue pill in the defendant’s wallet’s change pocket. The blue pill was identified by a pharmacy manager as Oxycodone. The defendant was taken into custody and transported to jail.

Charges:

Grand Theft(812.014(2c1))

Possession of Oxycodone

Process: After negotiations with the prosecutor, Mr. Foley was successful in having the charge of Possession of Oxycodone dropped. Mr. Foley had the defendant enroll in a PTI program, which ultimately resulted in dismissal of the Grand Theft.

Results :

Grand Theft(812.014(2c1)) - Dismissed

Possession of Oxycodone – Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed.


Internal Reference #1088

Facts : On 10/13, at 0033 hours, units were dispatched to a residential burglary that had just occurred. A witness advised dispatch that he observed an unknown white male exiting the locations with the victim’s bicycle. The witness also stated that two other subjects were observed on the street and described them as a Hispanic male and a black male. A perimeter was established and units responded to the scene as well as a K9 Officer and his K9 partner. The witness advised that he yelled to the white male, later identified as the defendant from his photo and asked him what he was doing, that the bike did not belong to him. The witness stated that the defendant fled west bound on a street, to the end of the street and initially dropped the bike, retrieved it, the proceeded eastbound again. At this point, the defendant stated that a vehicle turned from east of the incident location onto another street and the defendant dropped the bicycle and fled between several trailers and out of sight. The witness also stated that the two other individuals proceeded eastbound and then he lost sight of them. The witness provided clothing descriptions for the Hispanic male (black shirt and red shorts), and the white male (blue jeans and white shirt). The witness advised that the black male was described as tall and thin. Officer B asked the witness if he could identify the individuals again, if he saw them, and he stated that he could.

The K9 officer located the defendant and the Hispanic man at an intersection and advised both matched the description provided. Officer B then transported the witness to this location where he was able to positively identify the defendant as the individual he observed with the bicycle, taken from the enclosed patio, and the other male as one of the subjects he saw in the roadway. Officer B was also informed by the witness that the victim always leaves the bicycle on the screened in patio area of his residence. The witness also advised the Officer B that the screen door in quite loud when opened and this is what he heard and caused him to come outside and observe the bike being taken from the patio, by the defendant.

During the course of this investigation, Officer B spoke with the Hispanic male and he advised the following. He stated he ran into the defendant, earlier in the evening (approximately 2030 hours), at a local convenience store. He stated that they hung out for a while then parted ways. The Hispanic advised that his area friend was the other individual with him during this incident. He stated that he and his friend were going to another neighborhood friends home when they ran into the defendant again. He stated the defendant appeared intoxicated and asked if he could stay at his home because he had missed the bus and had no way home. The Hispanic male stated he could not and walked away. He then stated he observed the defendant riding a bike all of a sudden, but did not observe where he got the bike. The Hispanic male also stated that the defendant fled the area when vehicle turned up the street. He then stated he observed the defendant near his residence when he went home and it was at this time that officers made contact with them. The Hispanic male stated he had nothing to do with the burglary and the taking of the bike. He also stated that the other male had no involvement and that he and the other male had returned to his residence prior to officers arriving on scene. The Hispanic male provided Officer B with a sworn written statement in regards to this incident.

Based on the witness account, the statement by the Hispanic male and the location of the recovered bicycle (It was found in the roadway two houses west of the incident location) it is in Officer B’s belief that probable cause existed for the arrest of the defendant. The defendant was placed under arrest and Officer B advised him of his Miranda Rights from a prepared card. Prior to Officer B’s completion of this, he stated he wanted a lawyer and did not want to say anything or answer any questions. The defendant was transported to the police department for processing and subsequently to jail for booking.

Charges:

Burglary Unoccupied Dwelling (810.02-3(b))(maximum 15 years Florida State Prison)

Process: Mr. Foley contacted the state attorneys office and was able to persuaded them to not file formal charges.

Results :

Burglary Unoccupied Dwelling (810.02-3(b)) - Dismissed


Internal Reference # 1094

Facts : On 1/22 at approximately 0400 hours, the defendant along with co-defendants committed the offense of burglary conveyance and grant theft. The defendant along with co-defendants drove the defendant’s vehicle to the victim’s residence. The defendant along with a co-defendant (1) forced entry into the victim’s unoccupied car while co-defendant (2) waited as a lookout in the driver’s seat of the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant along with co-defendant (1) used a screwdriver to smash out the driver side window of the victim’s vehicle. The defendant along with Co-Defendant (1) then entered the victim’s vehicle and removed car parts valued at more than $300.00 dollars from the interior. The property that the victim later reported stolen included both the driver and passenger seats as well as a stereo system from the dashboard and a computer system that controlled the vehicle’s ignition.

During the burglary, Deputies were dispatched to the area regarding two subjects seen loitering in the area and a suspicious vehicle that was in the neighborhood. Deputies arrived on scene and made contact with the co-defendant(2) who had been sitting in the driver’s seat of the defendant’s vehicle directly down the street from the victim’s residence. Deputies placed co-defendant(2) into custody and began searching the neighborhood for the other subjects. While circulating the area, Deputies observed the defendant along with co-defendant(1) running on foot in an attempt to flee from Deputies. The defendant along with co-defendant(1) swam across a canal and fled on foot into the residential neighborhood back toward the co-defendant(2)’s residence. A K-9 was called out and tracked the co-defendant(1) to the co-defendant(2)’s residence, where he was found hiding under a tarp. The defendant obstructed with this investigator by fleeing from Deputies and was able to elude Deputies during the search and was not placed into custody at this time. Both co-defendants were arrested and transported to the police department.

An inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle was complete before being towed. During the inventory search property stolen from the victim’s vehicle had been recovered inside the trunk of the defendants vehicle. After Miranda was read both co-defendants confessed to their involvement with the burglary reported by the victim. The co-defendants also identified the defendant and gave statements implementing the defendant’s involvement with the burglary to the victim’s vehicle.

The victim gave a recorded statement indicating that she did not know or authorize the defendant or co-defendants to enter or remove property from her car. The property stolen from the victim’s vehicle was returned and was properly identified by the victim as the same property that had been stolen from the victim’s vehicle.

On 1/25, at approximately 1315 hours, the defendant voluntarily responded to the police department and turned himself into Officer L’s custody regarding the investigation. The defendant declined to give a statement and was arrested for the burglary to the victim’s vehicle. The defendant was then transported to jail.

Charges:

Burglary Conveyance (unoccupied)(810.02(4)(B))

Grand Theft- ($300-$5000)(812.014(2)(c)(1))

Resist Without Violence (843.02)

Results :

Burglary Conveyance (unoccupied)(810.02(4)(B)) –Withhold of Adjudication, 18 months probation concurrent

Grand Theft- ($300-$5000)(812.014(2)(c)(1)) Withhold of adjudication, 18 months probation concurrent

Resist Without Violence (843.02) - Dismissed


Internal Reference # 1102

Facts : During patrol on 12/13, Officer M observed a car stopped in the southbound right turn lane at a location with its hazards lights on. Officer M made contact with the defendant who advised him that she had ran out of gas. The defendant initially identified herself and stated her driver license was out of Ohio. Officer M further asked the defendant for her driver license, vehicle insurance and registration and the defendant stated that the vehicle is a rental, which she rented, and that she has no insurance. Officer M conducted a Teletype check on the tag and Teletype advised him that the vehicle was reported stolen the day before. The defendant was detained and taken to the police department where she gave a sworn taped statement to detectives. The defendant admitted during this statement that she had provided a false name, and then stated her real name, which is also on the rental agreement. The defendant further admitted that the vehicle was rented by her and she has had trouble making the rental payments on the vehicle due to financial reasons. P.D. spoke with the owner/manager of the rental car store (the owner of the vehicle) who stated that he still desires to prosecute. The defendant was taken to jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Auto Theft (812.014-2C6), False Name to Law Enforcement Officer (901.36), and License Not Valid (322.03)

Results : Due to differences between the attorney and the client (the client gave Mr. Foley a stolen credit card), Mr. Foley filed a Motion to Withdraw, which was granted.


Internal Reference # 1103

Facts : The defendant was charged with uttering a forged instrument, Petit Theft and had an outstanding Warrant.

Results : Case Dismissed


Internal Reference # 1132

Facts : The defendant was charged with Grand Theft

Process: Mr. Foley contacted the state attorneys office and was able to convince them not to file charges.

Results : The charge of Grand Theft was dismissed.


Internal Reference # 1140

Facts : The defendant was charged with Petit Theft

Results :

Petit Theft - Dismissed


Internal Reference #1141

Facts : On 8/2, the defendant who was employed as a delivery driver, did remove 2 computers from the delivery company facility with intent to deprive the victim of their property and benefits of it. On 8/4, the defendant stole another computer from the same location.

Contact was made with the Security Specialist (witness) who provided a sworn statement and a DVD copy of security surveillance video.

It should be noted that this particular delivery company facility has a sophisticated tracking system, which identified the defendant as the last person who had physical possession of the property.

Total loss was $3,630,62

The victim signed a victim affidavit wishing to press charges.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Grand Theft(812.014-2c1)

Results : Due to certain differences arising between the attorney and the defendant and an inability to communicate with the defendant, Mr. Foley filed a Motion to Withdraw from the case that was ultimately granted.


Internal Reference #1147

Facts : Detective C who being first duly sworn deposes and says that beginning on or about the 10 th day of December and continuing through the president, the defendant committed the offense charged and the Facts showing probable cause to believe same are as follows: Affiant received sworn information from the victim who stated that the defendant defrauded her in what he described a s business proposition involving a toxic waste cleanup with the Mexican government. The defendant blaming a cash flow problem told the victim that he needed $35,000. The defendant explained that if she gave him the $35,0000 he would allow her to participate in his deal that was going to be worth $92 million, offering her a return of 10%, or $9.2 million over the next three years. The defendant also promised that within three weeks, the victim would receive her initial $35,000 investment. The victim was able to gather up $34,000 that she transferred to the defendants bank account as follows : December 10, $15,000, December 19, $4,000 and $7,500, December 20, $35,000, and January 10, $3,000 for a total of $34,000. The defendant told the victim that the Mexican deal fell through, but he had another deal that he was going to present to a company. The defendant explained that the deal with the company was worth $200,000,000 and it involved seaweed that would be converted into gas and promised the victim 10% of this new deal in keeping with their initially agreed upon investment. In May 2011, the defendant suggested that the victim sell her only remaining asset, a home in Texas. The victim found a buyer for the house and the defendant accompanied her to the closing. The defendant explained to the victim that because of her financial situation, she had lost her primary home and filed for bankruptcy because of the mounting credit card debt that she had incurred , she could not keep the proceeds of the sale. The defendant told the victim to deposit the proceeds of the sale into his bank account so that the money could not be attached and it would be safe with him. Believing the defendant, the victim instructed the closing agent to wire transfer the proceeds of the sale $50,091.37 into the defendants bank account. The defendant assured the victim that he would give her money weekly until the deal with the company was completed. The victim stated that since July 2011, the defendant stopped returning her calls. Sworn testimony and supporting document obtained.

The affiant swears that the information contained in this affidavit is true and correct to the best of is knowledge and belief.

The defendant was charged with Grand Theft(Over $20,000) – 2 Degree Felony(812.014(2)(b)1)

Results : Mr. Foley filed a Motion to Withdraw, which was granted.


Internal Reference #1151

Facts : Deputy C responded to the victim’s residence in reference to a burglary (conveyance) complaint. The victim reported his vehicle had been burglarized overnight stolen from the vehicle interior was a GPS and a gold bag/clubs from the trunk. The victim valued his stolen items at $2,600.00 at the time of the initial report.

During the subsequent investigation, Officer M conducted a pawnshop system check. The computer check revealed the defendant, pawned six separate golf clubs on 2/24, at 1:11 pm, one of which was a Wilson golf club. The Wilson golf club matched an item reported stolen by the victim the day before. The pawnshop transaction listed the defendant’s driver’s license number and his telephone number. Officer M also checked the suspects Florida’s drivers license signature and compared it to the signature on the pawn transaction receipt. Both signatures appeared to be similar.

It should be noted that the victim and defendant both reside in the same community. The victim reported the burglary on 2/23, the defendant pawned the six golf clubs on 2/24.

On 2/26, the victim was shown photographs of the pawned golf clubs. The victim immediately identified the golf clubs as his stolen property and completed a written statement indicating so. The victim stated that he did not know the defendant name, or by photograph when shown to him. The victim did not give the defendant permission to pawn his property.

On 3/1, the victim responded to the pawn shop, visually identified and took possession of his six golf clubs from the pawn shop, after paying $130.00, for his clubs.

On 3/6, a photo line-up was presented to the employee of the pawn ship, who conducted the golf club transaction with the defendant. The employee identified the defendant as the person who he conducted the transaction with.

On 3/7, Officer M observed the defendant exit his residence and enter a vehicle, which was parked in his driveway. After the vehicle left the residence, Officer M conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle. The defendant was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle and taken into custody.

A post-Miranda confession was obtained from the suspect, who admitted to burglarizing the victim’s vehicle, with another subject who he identified by a name, stealing the victim’s golf clubs form the trunk with the other suspect and completing the pawn transaction of the victim’s property. The defendant split the proceeds of the sale with the other subject. The defendant also stated that he committed at least five other vehicle burglaries in the area on the same night.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Burglary(Conveyance), Dealing in Stolen Property, Grand Theft, and False Verification of Ownership.

Results : Burglary-dismissed, Grand theft dismissed, The defendant was facing a charge of Dealing in Stolen Property. The state reduced the charge. The charge was Nolle Prosse (dismissed) in exchange for the defendant entering into a PTI diversion program.


Internal Reference #1088

Facts : On 10/13, at 0033 hours, units were dispatched to a residential burglary that had just occurred. A witness advised dispatch that he observed an unknown white male exiting the locations with the victim’s bicycle. The witness also stated that two other subjects were observed on the street and described them as a Hispanic male and a black male. A perimeter was established and units responded to the scene as well as a K9 Officer and his K9 partner. The witness advised that he yelled to the white male, later identified as the defendant from his photo and asked him what he was doing, that the bike did not belong to him. The witness stated that the defendant fled west bound on a street, to the end of the street and initially dropped the bike, retrieved it, the proceeded eastbound again. At this point, the defendant stated that a vehicle turned from east of the incident location onto another street and the defendant dropped the bicycle and fled between several trailers and out of sight. The witness also stated that the two other individuals proceeded eastbound and then he lost sight of them. The witness provided clothing descriptions for the Hispanic male (black shirt and red shorts), and the white male (blue jeans and white shirt). The witness advised that the black male was described as tall and thin. Officer B asked the witness if he could identify the individuals again, if he saw them, and he stated that he could.

The K9 officer located the defendant and the Hispanic man at an intersection and advised both matched the description provided. Officer B then transported the witness to this location where he was able to positively identify the defendant as the individual he observed with the bicycle, taken from the enclosed patio, and the other male as one of the subjects he saw in the roadway. Officer B was also informed by the witness that the victim always leaves the bicycle on the screened in patio area of his residence. The witness also advised the Officer B that the screen door in quite loud when opened and this is what he heard and caused him to come outside and observe the bike being taken from the patio, by the defendant.

During the course of this investigation, Officer B spoke with the Hispanic male and he advised the following. He stated he ran into the defendant, earlier in the evening (approximately 2030 hours), at a local convenience store. He stated that they hung out for a while then parted ways. The Hispanic advised that his area friend was the other individual with him during this incident. He stated that he and his friend were going to another neighborhood friends home when they ran into the defendant again. He stated the defendant appeared intoxicated and asked if he could stay at his home because he had missed the bus and had no way home. The Hispanic male stated he could not and walked away. He then stated he observed the defendant riding a bike all of a sudden, but did not observe where he got the bike. The Hispanic male also stated that the defendant fled the area when vehicle turned up the street. He then stated he observed the defendant near his residence when he went home and it was at this time that officers made contact with them. The Hispanic male stated he had nothing to do with the burglary and the taking of the bike. He also stated that the other male had no involvement and that he and the other male had returned to his residence prior to officers arriving on scene. The Hispanic male provided Officer B with a sworn written statement in regards to this incident.

Based on the witness account, the statement by the Hispanic male and the location of the recovered bicycle (It was found in the roadway two houses west of the incident location) it is in Officer B’s belief that probable cause existed for the arrest of the defendant. The defendant was placed under arrest and Officer B advised him of his Miranda Rights from a prepared card. Prior to Officer B’s completion of this, he stated he wanted a lawyer and did not want to say anything or answer any questions. The defendant was transported to the police department for processing and subsequently to jail for booking.

Charges:

Burglary Unoccupied Dwelling (810.02-3(b))(maximum 15 years Florida State Prison)

Process: Mr. Foley contacted the state attorneys office and was able to persuade them to not file formal charges.

Results :

Burglary Unoccupied Dwelling (810.02-3(b)) - Dismissed


Internal Reference # 1094

Facts : On 1/22 at approximately 0400 hours, the defendant along with co-defendants committed the offense of burglary conveyance and grant theft. The defendant along with co-defendants drove the defendant’s vehicle to the victim’s residence. The defendant along with a co-defendant (1) forced entry into the victim’s unoccupied car while co-defendant (2) waited as a lookout in the driver’s seat of the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant along with co-defendant (1) used a screwdriver to smash out the driver side window of the victim’s vehicle. The defendant along with Co-Defendant (1) then entered the victim’s vehicle and removed car parts valued at more than $300.00 dollars from the interior. The property that the victim later reported stolen included both the driver and passenger seats as well as a stereo system from the dashboard and a computer system that controlled the vehicle’s ignition.

During the burglary, Deputies were dispatched to the area regarding two subjects seen loitering in the area and a suspicious vehicle that was in the neighborhood. Deputies arrived on scene and made contact with the co-defendant(2) who had been sitting in the driver’s seat of the defendant’s vehicle directly down the street from the victim’s residence. Deputies placed co-defendant(2) into custody and began searching the neighborhood for the other subjects. While circulating the area, Deputies observed the defendant along with co-defendant(1) running on foot in an attempt to flee from Deputies. The defendant along with co-defendant(1) swam across a canal and fled on foot into the residential neighborhood back toward the co-defendant(2)’s residence. A K-9 was called out and tracked the co-defendant(1) to the co-defendant(2)’s residence, where he was found hiding under a tarp. The defendant obstructed with this investigator by fleeing from Deputies and was able to elude Deputies during the search and was not placed into custody at this time. Both co-defendants were arrested and transported to the police department.

An inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle was complete before being towed. During the inventory search property stolen from the victim’s vehicle had been recovered inside the trunk of the defendants vehicle. After Miranda was read both co-defendants confessed to their involvement with the burglary reported by the victim. The co-defendants also identified the defendant and gave statements implementing the defendant’s involvement with the burglary to the victim’s vehicle.

The victim gave a recorded statement indicating that she did not know or authorize the defendant or co-defendants to enter or remove property from her car. The property stolen from the victim’s vehicle was returned and was properly identified by the victim as the same property that had been stolen from the victim’s vehicle.

On 1/25, at approximately 1315 hours, the defendant voluntarily responded to the police department and turned himself into Officer L’s custody regarding the investigation. The defendant declined to give a statement and was arrested for the burglary to the victim’s vehicle. The defendant was then transported to jail.

Charges:

Burglary Conveyance (unoccupied)(810.02(4)(B))

Grand Theft- ($300-$5000)(812.014(2)(c)(1))

Resist Without Violence (843.02)

Results :

Burglary Conveyance (unoccupied)(810.02(4)(B)) –Withhold of Adjudication, 18 months probation concurrent

Grand Theft- ($300-$5000)(812.014(2)(c)(1)) Withhold of adjudication, 18 months probation concurrent

Resist Without Violence (843.02) - Dismissed


Internal Reference # 1102

Facts : During patrol on 12/13, Officer M observed a car stopped in the southbound right turn lane at a location with its hazards lights on. Officer M made contact with the defendant who advised him that she had ran out of gas. The defendant initially identified herself and stated her driver license was out of Ohio. Officer M further asked the defendant for her driver license, vehicle insurance and registration and the defendant stated that the vehicle is a rental, which she rented, and that she has no insurance. Officer M conducted a Teletype check on the tag and Teletype advised him that the vehicle was reported stolen the day before. The defendant was detained and taken to the police department where she gave a sworn taped statement to detectives. The defendant admitted during this statement that she had provided a false name, and then stated her real name, which is also on the rental agreement. The defendant further admitted that the vehicle was rented by her and she has had trouble making the rental payments on the vehicle due to financial reasons. P.D. spoke with the owner/manager of the rental car store (the owner of the vehicle) who stated that he still desires to prosecute. The defendant was taken to jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Auto Theft (812.014-2C6), False Name to Law Enforcement Officer (901.36), and License Not Valid (322.03)

Results : Due to differences between the attorney and the client (the client gave Mr. Foley a stolen credit card), Mr. Foley filed a Motion to Withdraw, which was granted.


Internal Reference # 1057

Facts : The defendant was charged with Petty Theft (812.014(2e))

Results : Mr. Foley was successful in getting the case Nolle Prosequi ( dismissed)

Click on the following reviews to see what clients are saying about us
Client Reviews
I was charged with Domestic Violence few years ago and I was referred to Roger Foley from a family member! Roger is a BULLDOG! He was great and very aggressive in helping me beat this bogus case. Case was dismissed! He was on top of everything until the end!!
Now again in need of his help and wouldn't go anywhere else!
HIGHLY RECOMMEND
★★★★★
My wife (Mother of Stepson) and I Hired Mr Foley to represent my stepson in a minor criminal case. We would highly recommend as it is obvious to us That Mr Foley Genuinely cares and wants to do the Best he can for you which he did for us. Also has a great rapport with all parties in the courtroom..... Steve
★★★★★
Roger P. Foley got me reinstated. Also he got my COS waived, an got me to still be terminated off of probation on my expected termination date. I feel very comfortable with the decision my lawyer made for me. Also i would refer him to anyone who has a criminal felony or misdemeanor case. Jamar
★★★★★
Roger is a very compassionate person, he truly cares about his clients. He helped me with my case and was there for me every step of the way even if it was just reassurance that I needed. I would recommend him to anyone, he is absolutely the best! Cassandra G.
★★★★★
I think your firm did a great t job on 3 cases that were 28 years old. The results are better than expected. I truly appreciate the hard work that you and your firm put forth in obtaining the results that we did on this case. Jim
★★★★★