Home
Menu
Call outside Criminal Attorney Mark S. Barnett
904-562-8444
F.S. 817.67 on Google Scholar

F.S. 817.67 on Casetext

Amendments to 817.67


The 2021 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 817
FRAUDULENT PRACTICES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 817.67 Florida Statutes and Case Law
817.67 Penalties.
(1) A person who is subject to the penalties of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who is subject to the penalties of this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.s. 10, ch. 67-340; s. 883, ch. 71-136; s. 2, ch. 89-27.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: January 26, 2022
F.S. 817.67 on Google Scholar

F.S. 817.67 on Casetext

Amendments to 817.67


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 817.67
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 817.67.


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S817.67
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 817.67.


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Hinson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

    CASE NO. 3:15-cv-549-LC-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2018)
    A person who, with intent to defraud the issuer or a person or organization providing money, goods, services, or anything else of value or any other person, uses, for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value, a credit card obtained or retained in violation of this part or a credit card which he or she knows is forged, or who obtains money, goods, services, or anything else of value by representing, without the consent of the cardholder, that he or she is the holder of a specified card or by representing that he or she is the holder of a card and such card has not in fact been issued violates this section. A person who, in any 6-month period, uses a credit card in violation of this section two or fewer times, or obtains money, goods, services, or anything else in violation of this section the value of which is less than $100, is subject to the penalties set forth in s. 817.67( 1). A person who, in any 6-month period, uses a credit card in violation of this section more than two times, or obtains money, goods, services, or anything else in violation of this section the value of which is $100 or more, is subject to the penalties set forth…
    PAGE 16
  2. State v. Saiez

    489 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1986)   Cited 41 times
    Possession of machinery, plates or other contrivance or incomplete credit cards. — . . . a person possessing with knowledge of its character any machinery, plates or any other contrivance designed to reproduce instruments purporting to be the credit cards of an issuer who has not consented to the preparation of such credit cards, violates this subsection and is subject to the penalties set forth in s. 817.67(2). . . . (Emphasis added.)
  3. Padilla v. State

    753 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
    (2) Misrepresentation to issuer or acquirer. — A person who is authorized by an acquirer to furnish money, goods, services, or anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card by the cardholder, or any agent or employee of such person, who, with intent to defraud the issuer, the acquirer, or the cardholder, fails to furnish money, goods, services, or anything else of value which he or she represents in writing to the issuer or the acquirer that he or she has furnished violates this subsection and is subject to the penalties set forth in § 817.67(2).
    PAGE 664
  4. Neal v. State

    109 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times
    A person who, with intent to defraud the issuer or a person or organization providing money, goods, services, or anything else of value or any other person, uses, for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value, a credit card obtained or retained in violation of this part or a credit card which he or she knows is forged, or who obtains money, goods, services, or anything else of value by representing, without the consent of the cardholder, that he or she is the holder of a specified card or by representing that he or she is the holder of a card and such card has not in fact been issued violates this section. A person who, in any 6–month period, uses a credit card in violation of this section two or fewer times, or obtains money, goods, services, or anything else in violation of this section the value of which is less than $100, is subject to the penalties set forth in s. 817.67( 1). A person who, in any 6–month period, uses a credit card in violation of this section more than two times, or obtains money, goods, services, or anything else in violation of this section the value of which is $100 or more, is subject to the penalties set forth…
    PAGE 1247
  5. State v. McDonald

    690 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 8 times
    (1) ILLEGALLY OBTAINED OR ILLEGALLY POSSESSED CREDIT CARD; FORGED, REVOKED, OR EXPIRED CREDIT CARD. — A person who is authorized by an acquirer to furnish money, goods, services, or anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card by the cardholder, or any agent or employee of such person, who, with intent to defraud the issuer, the acquirer, or the cardholder, furnishes money, goods, services, or anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card obtained or retained in violation of this part or a credit card which he knows is forged, expired, or revoked violates this subsection and is subject to the penalties set forth in s. 817.67(1), if the value of all money, goods, services, and other things of value furnished in violation of this subsection does not exceed $300 in any 6-month period. The violator is subject to the penalties set forth in s. 817.67(2) if such value does exceed $300 in any 6-month period.
  6. Collins v. State

    626 So. 2d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times
    Collins argues, and the State concedes, that there is no evidence to support his conviction for grand theft; we reverse this conviction. Collins' claim of sentencing error also is meritorious, as the State concedes. The trial court sentenced Collins to three years' probation under count I (credit card theft) to run concurrently with all other counts. Section 817.60(1), Florida Statutes (1991) (credit card theft), provides that any person who violates it is subject to penalties set forth in section 817.67( 1), Florida Statutes (1991). Section 817.67( 1) provides that a person subject to it is guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor. Section 948.15(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that a defendant found guilty of a misdemeanor shall be subject to supervision for not more than six months, unless otherwise specified by the court, or unless the use of alcohol is a significant factor in the offense (then probation may extend to one year); there is no evidence in the record that alcohol was a factor in any offense. Thus, there is no authority for imposing a three-year probationary sentence for a misdemeanor. Collins' sentence of probation in count I must be reduced…
    PAGE 993
  7. Katucki v. Mount

    NNHCV136037443 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 2015)
    The plaintiff's medical expenses were partially paid by her employee welfare benefit plan, the UTC-Cigna plan, established and funded by her employer, Sikorsky Aircraft, to conform with the Employee Retirement Income Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. This plan is a fully self-funded ERISA plan with a right of subrogation. Of the $29, 253.75 in medical expenses, UTC-Cigna was billed $8, 817.67, paid the plaintiff's medical providers $6, 950.93, and is now asserting an ERISA lien in the amount of $6, 950.93 against the plaintiff's jury award. The remainder of the medical expenses were covered by insurance premiums and out of the plaintiff's own pocket.
  8. Keels v. State

    792 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    That portion of the information charging fraudulent use of a credit card alleged that Keels, on a particular date, obtained "goods and services" from the victim in the amount of $17.12 through the use of a credit card issued in a third person's name. The information further alleged that Keels was in unlawful possession of the credit card and used it with the intent to defraud the victim contrary to section 817.61, Florida Statutes (1999). Section 817.61 is titled "Fraudulent use of credit cards." It states, in pertinent part: "A person who, in any 6-month period, uses a credit card in violation of this section two or fewer times, or obtains money, goods, services, or anything else in violation of this section the value of which is less than $100, is subject to the penalties set forth in s. 817.67(1)." Section 817.67(1) provides that "[a] person who is subject to the penalties of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."
  9. Golden v. State

    335 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
    Upon review pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no reversible error and affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence. We write only to correct a scrivener's error in the judgment. See Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n.3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a scrivener's error as a written clerical error that is not "the result of a judicial determination or error"). The judgment incorrectly lists sections 817.61 and 817.67, Florida Statutes, on the grand theft count, and section 812.014, Florida Statutes, on the fraudulent use of a credit card counts. On remand, the trial court shall correct the judgment to accurately list each statute to correspond with the crime. Appellant need not be present for this ministerial correction to the judgment. See Walton v. State , 106 So. 3d 522, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[A] defendant need not be present at resentencing if the error to be corrected is ‘purely ministerial’ or clerical, and involves no exercise of the court's discretion.").