Car Theft

Court Discusses Proving Theft Under Florida Law

Posted In: January 22, 2021 | Hanlon Law, PA

Many crimes, including theft, contain an element of intent. In other words, the State must show that a defendant charged with an intent crime possessed the required mental state at the time the offense was committed; otherwise, the defendant should not be convicted. The evidence needed to demonstrate intent in a case in which a defendant is charged with theft was the topic of a recent Florida opinion, in a matter in which the defendant appealed his convictions for numerous crimes. If you are accused of theft or any other offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a knowledgeable Tampa theft defense attorney regarding your rights.

The Alleged Crimes

It is reported that on the night of the Super Bowl in 2017, the defendant, a friend, and the victim went to the victim’s house to search for ammunition and guns. They discussed seeking revenge on another person who burglarized the defendant’s. The following night, the victim was sitting outside when he heard gunshots. He then saw individuals get into the friend’s car. The car was later stopped by the police, and the defendant fell out of the backseat, reporting he had been shot.

Allegedly, the defendant’s blood and belongings were found inside of a car that had been stolen and abandoned on the highway. Surveillance video later revealed that three individuals were shot and killed in the victim’s backyard, including the person that the defendant sought revenge against, and the defendant’s car was parked nearby. The defendant was charged with and convicted of multiple homicide crimes and grand theft auto. During the trial, he moved for acquittal on the theft charge, but the court denied his motion. He appealed, arguing in part that the State did not prove he required the specific intent needed to commit theft.

Florida Court Rules Dual Carjacking and Grand Theft Auto Convictions Violate Double Jeopardy

Posted In: March 27, 2019 | Hanlon Law, PA

While many people are aware of the protection afforded under the right against double jeopardy it is not always clear when double jeopardy applies and defendants are often convicted of more than one crime arising out of the same alleged act, in violation of double jeopardy. Recently, a Florida appellate court overturned a defendant’s conviction for grand theft auto, finding that it was precluded under double jeopardy due to his carjacking conviction. If you live in Tampa and are charged with grand theft or any other theft crime, it is important to protect your rights by retaining an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney who will present a tenacious defense on your behalf.

The Alleged Carjacking and Grand Theft Auto

Allegedly, in August of 2015, a man went up to a woman approaching her car and pointed a gun at her, telling her if she screamed, he would shoot her. The man took the woman’s phone and purse and then used her keys to steal her car. The woman reported the car as stolen, and the police spotted the car with a license plate reader. The police pursued the car with lights and sirens activated, but the vehicle did not stop until it crashed. The defendant exited the vehicle after the crash and fled on foot. After a pursuit he was detained and arrested.

Prosecutors’ Burden of Proof in Florida Auto Theft Cases – VG v. State

Posted In: December 20, 2017 | Hanlon Law, PA

One of the most important things that anyone charged with a Florida theft crime should know is that the burden is at all times on prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. That means they have to prove more than just a hunch, and they have to do more than show that you probably committed the crime. As the state’s Second District Court of Appeals recently explained, that means in auto theft cases that prosecutors have to show that the car in which the person charged was caught is the car that was stolen.One afternoon in May 2016, a man drove a silver Dodge Dart to his aunt’s house in Tampa. He came to retrieve some paperwork from his cousin. He left keys in the car – a rental – along with his cell phone, his wallet, and a bag of clothes. He also left the car windows down. The car was gone when he returned a few minutes later. He contacted police but wasn’t able to remember the vehicle’s license plate number.

The following night, a Tampa police officer observed a silver Dodge Dart roll through a stop sign, make a quick lane change, and make several quick turns before running another couple of stop signs. The three people inside the car – two men and one woman – jumped out and started running away when the officer approached. The officer eventually apprehended the woman, identified in court documents as “VG.” She was arrested and charged with grand theft auto and burglary, among other charges.

VG appealed the conviction, arguing that prosecutors never proved that the car from which she fled was the same vehicle that was stolen from the man. She said she didn’t know who owned the car and simply fled because the man behind the wheel said “we gotta jump out.” VG’s lawyer also pointed out that the prosecutors did not match the car’s license plate or Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) with the rental car. The Second District agreed.