|
||||||
Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: January 26, 2022
|
The issue to be decided is whether conduct which violates both the State Credit Card Crime Act, Section 817.60(1), (3), Florida Statutes 1973, and the provision making it unlawful to receive stolen property, Section 811.16, Florida Statutes 1973, may be punished under the latter, even though the former, a newer law, sets a less severe punishment.Chapter 817 is entitled Fraudulent Practices. It is divided into three parts. This case involves a violation of part II, Credit Card Crimes. Sections 817.60 and 817.61 are included in part II. A.M. was charged and tried for a violation of section 817.61.§ 817.60(1), Fla. Stat. (2002).Ruben Casais appeals from his conviction for uttering a forged credit card in violation of section 817.60, Florida Statutes (2015). Appellant used altered gift cards to purchase cigarettes and other items at a Public grocery store. When the police confronted Appellant they discovered he had several altered gift cards in his possession. Because the statute under which he was convicted specifically defines "credit cards" in a way that does not include the "gift cards" used or possessed by Appellant, his conviction must be overturned.The minute order from defendant's plea of not guilty provided that the alleged crimes were "810.01 3A burglary of occupied dwell," "812.014 3A petit theft of property," and "817.60 1 theft of credit card." (Capitalization omitted.) The "Plea Form" was signed by defendant that stated that he pleaded no contest to all three alleged crimes, and that the prosecution recommended that defendant pay $100 in restitution.N.S., a juvenile, appeals from an order withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing her on probation for credit card theft in violation of section 817.60(1), Florida Statutes (2006). N.S. claims that the trial court reversibly erred by allowing the State to introduce inadmissible hearsay evidence, over defense objection. While we agree that the evidence was improperly admitted, we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus, we affirm.UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A STOLEN [CREDIT] [DEBIT] CARD — 817.60(8) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. None Attempt 777.04 5.1Appellant correctly argues that the trial court did not determine whether the fraudulent use of a credit card counts were misdemeanors or felonies. Although both parties assert that this matter was discussed before trial, the matter did not arise until the sentencing hearing. Appellant's motion to strike amended informations only addressed the state's elevation of the counts "of wrongful use of a credit card, misdemeanors under Fla. Stat. 817.60( 7), to felonies under the general forgery statute." Section 817.60( 7) concerns signing the credit card of another. A review of the discussion between the parties and the trial court before the trial indicates that the issue raised by appellant at the sentencing hearing, that appellant was tried on separate counts of fraudulent use of a credit card which constitute misdemeanors, was not specifically discussed. At the sentencing hearing, the state asserted that the section 817.61 counts were felonies because appellant used the credit card more than two times in a six month period. Since the trial court never made a finding whether these counts (and therefore the convictions) were felonies or misdemeanors, the matter… Pursuant to § 817.60(8), Fla. Stat., it is not a crime for a retailer or retail employee, in the ordinary course of business, to possess, receive, or return a credit card or debit card that the retailer or retail employee does not know was stolen or to possess, receive, or retain a credit card or debit card that the retailer or retail employee knows is stolen for the purpose of an investigation into the circumstances regarding the theft of the card or its possible unlawful use.§§ 817.60(1), 817.67(1), Fla. Stat. (1991).