GOOGLE Reviews
AVVO Reviews

Theft Crimes Case Results (Part 4)

Internal Reference #9009

Facts: The defendant did enter the victim’s garage and removed a bag of golf clubs valued at $400.00. The defendant then took the stolen golf club and threw them in a dumpster with the intent of depriving the victim of them. The defendant admitted post Miranda that he committed the above crime and drove the detectives to the victim’s residence and later to the area where he dumped the golf bag and clubs. The defendant was processed and later transported to the main jail. The victim does wish to prosecute.

Charges: Burglary Residence

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

Result: Burglary Residence – No Information – Dismissed

All Charges Dismissed

Internal Reference #9020

Facts: The defendant selected $330.00 worth of clothing and took it to the fitting rooms. The defendant removed all sales tags and security sensors from the clothing while inside the fitting rooms. The defendant proceeded to conceal the clothing under his own and exited the fitting rooms. The defendant exited the store passing all points of sale without making payment. The incident was observed by Loss Prevention via CCTV and Floor Surveillance. The defendant was stopped outside of the store by loss prevention and escorted tot eh security office. As loss prevention waited for the Police Departments arrival, the defendant fled the office leaving his wallet and Florida Drivers License behind. The Loss Prevention Officer engaged in a foot pursuit but were unable to apprehend the defendant. Loss Prevention Officer G positively identified the defendant as the same seen on the drivers license The store wishes to prosecute. Officer B previously arrested the defendant after he stole $750.00 worth of clothing from another store.

Charges: Retail Theft Grand

Result: Retail Theft Grand – Withhold Adjudication, 2 years probation

Internal Reference #9021

Facts: The defendant was arrested for the listed charge to wit: Defendant and Co-Defendant selected $750.00 worth of clothing. Both defendants took the merchandise to the fitting rooms and removed all security sensors. The defendant concealed the selected merchandise under his own clothing. The defendant and co-defendant exited the store together passing all points of sale without making payment. Incident observed via CCTV and Floor Surveillance by Loss Prevention. Post Miranda read from prepared text defendant admitted to the above described theft. The defendant was processed at the police department and transported to jail.

Charges: Retail Theft Grand

Result: Retail Theft Grand – Withhold Adjudication, 2 years probation

Internal Reference #10014

Facts: The defendant along with three other individuals were charged with Grand Theft. The Grand Theft totaled $337,806.51. Based on the defendants involvement, Mr. Foley was able to convince the state attorneys office to reduce the defendants charges from grand theft of the second degree to grand theft of the third degree.

Charges: Grand Theft Of The Second Degree

Result: Grand Theft Of The Second Degree – Reduced to Grand Theft of the third degree - Adjudication Withheld, 5 years probation, special condition that the defendant pay $20,806.51. It was also agreed that the defendants probation would be terminated early upon payment of all restitution as long as there were no violations.

Internal Reference #10017

Facts: On Saturday at 12:32 PM, Officer M was dispatched to a store in reference to a female ship lifter detained. Officer M arrived on scene and met with the Loss Prevention Officer (witness). The witness stated that he observed the defendant select a sink repair ball rod valued at $6.98 from the store shelf. The witness stated the defendant then intentionally removed the rod from inside the package, using some small scissors, and placed the rod in her right pocket and placed the other item in her left pocket. The witness also stated that the defendant removed a pair of firm grip gloves valued at $14.99 from the shelf and placed them in a fanny pack that she was wearing around her waist. Prior to placing the gloves in her waist, she removed the plastic tag from the gloves. The witness stated the defendant then walked past all points of sale without making any attempts to pay for the listed merchandise. The defendant also had in her possession two spark lugs valued at $3.58 that she admitted to the witness that she also took from the store. Total loss was $25.44. All items were returned to the witness via a property receipt.

The witness stopped the defendant outside the store and he identified himself to be the security officer for the store. The witness then called the sheriff’s office for assistance.

The witness signed a victim-theft affidavit stating that the store wished to prosecute. The defendant was placed into custody and transported to the police department for processing. The defendant was subsequently transported to jail for further processing.

The defendant stated she was arrested previously for a Petit Theft charge in another state a few months ago. The defendant does not reside in the state. The defendant stated she was only in the area for three days and would be returning to another state.

Charges: Petit Theft

Result: Petit Theft – Withhold Adjudication – Court Costs

Internal Reference #20255

Facts: The defendant did knowingly and unlawfully obtain and use a club car golf cart belonging to a country club with the intent to, either temporarily and permanently, deprive the victim of its use, to wit: Grand Theft. The suspect stole the club car while being on viewed by the witnesses. A chase ensued between the defendant and the witnesses through the golf course and later through the residential neighborhood. The defendant then crashed the club car into a residential air conditioner unit. The impact caused severe damage to the air conditioner unit, as well as the club car. The defendant fled from the scene but a juvenile co-defendant was arrested at this time.

The defendant later responded to the sheriff’s office sub-station. During a videotaped statement, the defendant was advised of his Miranda warnings and agreed to answer questions and waived his right to an attorney. The defendant confessed to the theft and stated that while he and the co-defendant were walking from a friend’s home, they saw the club car sitting in front of the tennis courts. The club car had the keys in it and it was running. The defendant then entered the driver’s side and drove away. As the defendant drove away, he noticed that he was being followed by the witnesses. The defendant tried to get away by driving on the golf course and later into a neighborhood. The defendant then drove in between two houses, where he lost control and hit the air conditioning unit. The defendant then fled on foot and went to his friend’s home. The defendant stated that he took the club car because he didn’t feel like walking.

The damage to the club car was approximately $2500.00. The amount of damage to the air conditioning unit will follow at a later date.

Charges: Grand theft >$300 <$500 (812.014(2c1)) – Maximum Penalty: 5 years in prison

Process: Mr. Foley reviewed case law and the statutes pertaining to the case. Mr. Foley, the court, and the defendant’s mother agreed to put the defendant into a military school (the defendant is a juvenile). Since the defendant was in military school, the state agreed to withhold adjudication on the case.

Results: Grand theft >$300 <$500 – Adjudication Withheld

Entered into a military school for 6 months

Note: The client completed military school and entered college

No Jail, No Prison, No Probation, No Conviction

Internal Reference #20263

Facts: The defendant did knowingly obtain the property of another with intent to permanently deprive the victim of a right to the property or a benefit of the property. To wit: The defendant and unidentified co-defendant selected the victim’s merchandise and opened a fire exit in the garden department. The defendant and the co-defendant placed the stolen merchandise outside of the store through this fire exit. The defendants then exited the store, and went to the fire exit outside of the store. The defendants were witness by two different people gathering the merchandise. One of the witnesses was able to obtain the license plate number of the vehicle. Both witnesses identified the suspect in separate photo lineups. Total Estimated Loss: $617.00.

The officer responded to a location in reference to a theft. Upon arrival, the officer made contact with witness 1, corporate security officer of a home improvement store. Witness 1 advised that while at the home improvement store, he observed a vehicle parked in the loading dock with an unknown female subject (the defendant) in the driver’s seat. He stated that he then saw the vehicle pull into the front of the store and pick up an unknown female (the co-defendant) at which point they drove back to the loading dock. Both females then exited the vehicle and began placing items that were on the outside of the fire exit into their vehicle. Witness 1 then proceeded to make contact with the females when they got back into the vehicle and proceeded westbound. Witness 1 advised that he proceeded to follow the vehicle. While following the vehicle, the unknown females threw out items from the vehicle. Witness 1 stated that he recovered the items and returned to the home improvement store.

The officer then made contact with witness 2, store manager. Witness 2 advised that while working at the front of the store, she noticed the fire alarm to one of the exits going off. She proceeded to the exit and noticed that the door was now closed. Witness 2 then proceeded to exit the store and go towards the door where the fire alarm was going off. When she got to the area she saw two females loading items from the other side of the fire exit into their vehicle. She then proceeded to tell them to stop at which point the females quickly finished putting the items into their car and fled the scene with witness 1 following. When she walked over to the door she noticed the females had left one drill behind, which she recovered. She further stated that she believed that one female must have gathered the items inside the store and then opened the fire door and placed them outside the store and then quickly closed the door, at which point she exited the vehicle and was picked up by the other female in the vehicle.

Routine records check of the tag provided revealed the vehicle was owned by the defendant. Witness 1 stated that prior to the officer’s arrival, he had run the tag and when he saw that the tag came back, he called the police department and advised the detectives of the situation. Witness 1 further advised that the detectives were going to watch the house until the vehicle returned home.

Charges: Grand theft in the third degree (812.014(2)(c)(1)) – Maximum Penalty: 5 years in prison

Process: The client was arrested based on a photo lineup. Mr. Foley took depositions, spoke to witnesses of the incident, and received an alibi from the client. Mr. Foley presented the preceding information to the state and convinced the state to dismiss the case. The client was innocent and did not participate in the act of grand theft.

Results: Grand theft in the third degree – Nolle Prosequi (Dismissed)

No Jail, No Prison, No Probation, 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 ... Thomas
My wife (Mother of Stepson) and I Hired Mr Foley to represent my stepson in a minor criminal case. We would highly recommend ... Steve
Roger P. Foley got me reinstated. Also he got my COS waived, and got me to still be terminated off of probation on my expected termination date ... 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 ... Cassandra G.
I think your firm did a great job on 3 cases that were 28 years old. The results are better than expected. I truly appreciate the hard work that ... Jim