Theft Crimes Case Results (Part 3)

Internal Reference #1061

Facts : Officer K responded to the store in reference to a shoplifter in custody. Upon Officer K’s arrival, he made contact with the store loss prevention officer (witness). The witness advised that he observed a black female, later to be identified as the defendant, in the garden department loading a shopping cart with flowers. The defendant left that cart by the returns register and went to the self-checkout and purchased some items. The defendant returned to the cart and pushed the cart outside the store without paying for the flowers, total retail value $225.71, where she was detained by the witness. The store desired prosecution and the defendant was arrested for Larceny-Retail Theft.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Larceny-Retail Theft (F.S.S 812.015)

Result: Mr. Foley withdrew from the case.


Internal Reference #2003

Facts:

Charges:

Grand Theft

Result:

Grand Theft in the 3 rd Degree - Adjudication Withheld. 1 year or probation.

No Prison, No Jail, No Conviction


Internal Reference #2008

Facts: Officer L responded to a location in reference to a theft. Upon arrival, Officer l spoke with the victim who stated that the defendant came into his store and took 9 watches totaling an approximate value of $1,000.00. The victim stated that they had a previous business transaction that went bad with the defendant, and the defendant believes that the victim still owes him money. The victim stated that the defendant said he will take the watches and won’t return them until the defendant pays him his money. The defendant then left the store with all 9 watches.

A shirt while after, the victim made contact with the defendant and asked him to comeback to the store. The defendant turned to the store with all 9 watches in his possession. The victim positively identified the defendant and the defendant was arrested and taken to the police station A short while after, the defendant began complaining about chest pains and was taken to the hospital, and later to the jail.

A picture was taken of the watches inside of the defendant’s vehicle, and stapled to the pink copy of the arrest form.

A case card was issued and all nine watches were returned to the defendant.

A video profile was set.

Charges:

Grand Theft 3 RD Degree

Result:

Grand Theft 3 RD Degree – Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed


Internal Reference #2016

Facts: The Defendant and Co-Defendant dis select and conceal $117.71 worth of merchandise on their persons from store shelves. The defendant and co-defendant than exited the store, passing all points of sale without making any attempt to pay for the merchandise, until stopped by store security personnel.

The defendant did knowingly endeavor to obtain the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of all rights and benefits to the property.

Post Miranda, Both defendants confessed to the incident.

Charges:

Petit Theft (812.014)

Results:

Petit Theft (812.014) – Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed


Internal Reference # 2019

Facts: Due to the high volume of recent burglaries, Officer P was conducting a patrol of the warehouse businesses in the area. Officer P made contact with three witnesses, who advised they observed two black males in a fenced compound. The witnesses advised the suspects first attempted to conceal themselves, then fled east bound. Officer P issued a BOLO with the suspect’s descriptions.

Sgt C responded to a location and made contact with the two black suspects. The subjects were separated and read Miranda Rights, to which they elected to waive.

The subjects’ stories were contradicting, and they were unable to dispel the alarm of deputies over their presence in the area.

The witnesses were transported to the location, where they positively identified the defendant and an accomplice as the subjects they had observed in the fenced compound.

During a check of the location and other surrounded business’s, Sgt. C located a suspicious vehicle occupied by two black males, parked at one of the businesses. The two occupants were separated and read Miranda Rights, to which they elected to waive.

Both of the occupants advised that they were on their way to their residence, and had pulled over to rest. They advised that their friends, the defendant and his accomplice, had exited the vehicle and not returned.

Investigation revealed that the defendant and his accomplice entered a fenced compound and broke into a car by smashing the passenger side window with the intent to remove items from within the vehicle.

Charges:

Burglary Conveyance Unoccupied (810.02-4(3))

Result:

Burglary Conveyance Unoccupied (810.02-4(3)) – 2 years probation Withhold of Adjudication.

No Prison, No Jail, No Conviction


Internal Reference #3006

Facts: The defendant did unlawfully enter or remain in the occupied residence or curtilage thereofore at the above location with the intent to commit the offense of theft, to-wit: the obtaining, using or endeavoring to obtain or use the property of another, said property being a Go-Ped, valued at $350, with the intent to permanently or temporarily and unlawfully deprive the owner or any other person of said property or the use and benefit thereof, and at the time of such entry or remaining in such residence, there was a human being in said residence. The defendant was subsequently arrested for burglary of an occupied residence, booked, and transported to holding.

Charges:

1. Burglary of a dwelling, occupied (810.02.39)

Result:

1.Burglary of a dwelling, occupied (810.02.39) - Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed


Internal Reference #3020

Facts:

Charges:

Grand Theft Third Degree

Result:

Grand Theft Third Degree – Dismissed

All charges dismissed


Internal Reference #4003

Facts: The defendant purchased one women’s suit jacket valued at $260 on 2/10 at the victim’s location. On the same date, the defendant intentionally and unlawfully attached the new jacket’s price ticket on a separate, yet similar older jacket in which she was already in possession of. The defendant then returned this merchandise to the victim’s business as if it were the original jacket and had the amount credited to her store account. On 2/18, the defendant intentionally and unlawfully committed the same crime with another jacket valued at $250. Post Miranda via prepared text, the defendant admitted to committing these crimes and appeared remorseful. The victim’s business wishes to prosecute and the defendant was transported to the police department.

Charges:

Grand Theft

Result:

Grand Theft- Successfully completed Pre Trial Intervention Program – Charge Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed


Internal Reference #4008

Facts: On June 25, the defendant deposited a check for $205,000 from a trust account drawn on a bank and made payable to himself, into his bank account. On June 29, the defendant entered into agreement with a bank to close his accounts after applying $197,051.41 to cover a defect in his business account, and then wired the remaining to an attorney. On July 2, the defendant knowing that the account did not have adequate funds, wire transferred $189,292.02 of the money out of the account to another bank account. On July 20, the bank received a initial check for $205,000 back from another bank account, closed thus, defrauding them of that amount. Despite receiving notice, via certified mail, of the dishonored check on August 11, the defendant has failed to make good on the check. On September 24, after reading the defendant his rights, the defendant confessed to the above-mentioned facts.

Charges:

Grand Theft In The First Degree

Process

Mr. Foley convinced the state to take prison time off the table. Defendant received 5 years probation with a special condition that if the money is paid back, the probation will be terminated. The defendant had the money that day in court so probation was instantly terminated.

Result:

Grand Theft In The First Degree – Withhold Adjudication. 5 years of probation. Terminated on first day due to special condition. One day of probation.


Internal Reference #6004

Facts: Officer was dispatched to the location in reference to a burglary to a conveyance. Contact was made with victim, who updated officer on the events and circumstances to the incident. Victim stated that an individual removed/stole a black laptop case and Gateway laptop from the vehicle. Victim stated that an individual entered his vehicle without authorization and with the intent to commit a crime within. Victim signed a Burglary Affidavit wishing to prosecute the individual. Contact was made with the witness, who said he saw the ∆ entered through the rear of the vehicle and remove a black computer laptop bag. Witness stated that he is employed as security personnel. Officer transported witness to the “show up” investigation. Witness positively identified ∆ as the individual who entered the conveyance.

∆ was read his Miranda Rights and signed that he understood. ∆ provided a full confession/statement to the burglary on a cassette tape sworn statement and apologized that his actions were not premeditated. ∆ stated that he no longer had possession of the laptop computer and case.

∆ was located due to a BOLO from dispatch while traveling home in his vehicle. ∆ was transported to jail for processing.

Process:

Charges:

Burglary of structure/conveyance unoccupied

Result:

Burglary of structure/conveyance unoccupied – pretrial diversion program, nolle prosequi - Dismissed

No jail and no prison time


Internal Reference #6023

Facts: ∆ was inside the store in the mall. She selected items and exited without paying for them. They were valued at $280.49. ∆ was stopped outside the store.

Process: ∆ paid $100 restitution to store with civil claim against her and completed a shoplifting course.

Charges:

Petit theft

Result:

Petit theft – nolle prosequi

All charges dismissed


Internal Reference #7023

Facts:

Charges:

Petit Theft

Alcoholic Beverage Under Age of 21

Result:

Petit Theft - Dismissed

Alcoholic Beverage Under Age of 21 – Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed


Internal Reference #8004

Facts: On 12/13, An individual passed away from a prolonged disease. Before his death, the individual owned a joint bank account with his niece. After the death, his niece became the sole owner of the bank account

On 1/03, the defendant arrived at an ATM at the crime location with the passed away individual’s debit card and pin code to access a bank account. The defendant withdrew $500.00 from the niece’s account without her permission. The niece did not give the defendant permission to access her account. The niece also identified the defendant from the surveillance footage that captured the ATM transaction at the above location.

Charges:

Grand Theft

Result:

Grand Theft – Adjudication Withheld, 6 months probation


Internal Reference #8010

Facts: Officer B and Officer M responded to a location in reference to a theft of motor vehicle parts in progress. While en-route to the location, the victim told the police department dispatch that he was observing from within his residence, a white male later identified as the defendant who was wearing a black t-shirt, blue jean shorts and black shoes crawling underneath of the victims truck. The victim further advised that he witnessed the defendant walk back to a car which was parked next to the victims truck as he grabbed a tool (later found to be a tire iron). The witness stated that the defendant returned to the truck as he began to take off the lug nuts from the front left rim/tire.

Upon officer arrival, Officer B and Officer M observed the defendant sitting in the driver seat of the above mentioned car as the tire iron was located on the ground next to the front left tire of the truck that was mentioned above as well. Upon making contact with the defendant, he appeared startled as he saw officers. When asked if he lived in the neighborhood, the defendant stated that he did not. Based on the above listed information, Officer M was able to make contact with the victim who started that the defendant was the individual who was attempting to take the rim and tire off of his vehicle listed above.

In conclusion to Officer M’s investigation, the defendant was arrested pursuant to Attempted Grand Theft and Possession of Burglary Tools. It should be noted that upon placing the defendant into handcuffs, he spontaneously uttered that he was currently going through some rough times financially and that he was simply trying to steal the lug nuts to the vehicle and that he was not going to steal the vehicle. The defendant is currently suspected of numerous additional theft sin the neighborhood, additional charges pending further investigation. Total value of vehicle rim/tire $1,000.00. The defendant was transported to the police department for processing and later transported to jail.

Charges:

2 Counts Attempted Grand Theft Felony

Possession of Burglary Tools Felony

Result:

2 Counts Attempted Grand Theft – Reduced to lesser charge of Petit Theft(Over $100), Adjudication, 2 days jail with credit for 2 days already served(no jail). Order to pay restitution.

Possession of Burglary Tools – Dismissed


Internal Reference #9007

Facts: On 4/18 at approximately 1648 hours, Officer S and Officer A responded to a store in reference to a shoplifter in custody. Upon arrival, contact was made with a loss prevention agent who had the defendant in custody. The loss prevention agent stated she had observed the defendant enter the store, select a pair of earrings ($42) and placed them in her hand, then continued to shop for additional 20 mins. The defendant then went upstairs, purchased some items, then went down the escalator and concealed the earrings in her pants. The loss prevention officer then observed the defendant proceed through the SE exit, passing all points of sale making no attempt to pay. Once outside, the loss prevention officer identified herself as loss prevention and escorted the defendant to the loss prevention office. The defendant was arrested for retail theft and then released on scene with an NTA.

Charges:

Petit Retail Theft

Result:

Retail Theft – Entered PTI program – Case 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
★★★★★