Judicial Circuit Of The State Of Florida †Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Article for Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. Answer: Statement Of The Facts On Wednesday, ______, 20___, Sam Kant went to national department store named as Bilmart on his wifes request, and purchase a case of six 4 oz. cans of Hoovers Baked Beans with Bacon. After returning home his wife scolds him because he failed to purchase the thing what her wife had requested. Mrs. Kant does not like the taste of Hoovers Beans, but she likes the Handells brand. She invited her book club for lunch on the following afternoon and wants to serve those Baked Beans with Bacon to her guest. Mrs. Kant ordered Mr. Kant to go back to the store and exchange the Hoovers beans for Handells Beans. Next morning Mr. Kant went to the store again and found that there is long line for customer service because of Bilmarts annual sponsorship of a major community food drive. Mr. Kant tries to save the time, and he thinks that may be line reduced upon his return, Mr. Kant put the case of Hoovers beans in the shopping cart and go straight to the bean shelf and add Handells beans to the cart. After return Mr. Kant realizes that line had not reduced and Mr. Kant waited for long to make the exchange of Hoovers beans for Handells Beans. Mr. Kant feared from the anger of Mrs. Kant for not returning the home on time for lunch. Sam put the cases of Hoovers beans in the cart which is filled with the goods which is returned and need re stocking in store. Mr. Kant move towards the exit of the store with the Handells beans in the shopping cart. Security of the store witnessed the actions of Mr. Kant and detained Mr. Kant near the exit door of the store. Store called the police. Later on it was found that the cart in which Mr. Kant placed the Hoovers Beans was not for the return items, but it contains the goods which are donated to the Bilmart Community Food Drive. Policeman and slickman ask questions from Mr. Kant and charged him for shoplifting. This case was decided by the Judge of the County Court; Florida who found that Mr. Sam Kant takes possession of the cases of Handells Beans owns by the Bilmart or takes away the cases of beans without paying the bill and he does not follow the procedure for returning the goods. Honorable Judge of the County Court further said that Mr. Sam Kant put the cases of the Hoovers Beans in the cart which contains the donating goods. Judge also found that Mr. Sam Kant was leaving the store without paying for the cases of Handells Beans and demean the right of the Bilmart. Honorable Judge of the County Court, Florida held Mr. Sam Kant guilty and imposed imprisonment of 1 year and fine up to $ 700. Judge said that offence committed by Mr. Kant was fall under the provision of retail theft (Section 812.015 (1) (d) of Title XLVI: Crimes (chapter 812), of Florida Statutes) and under the category of first degree petit theft. Judge considers that Mr. Sam Kant takes possession of the Handells Beans owns by the Bilmart or takes away the Handells Beans without the prior permission of Bilmart. Mr. Sam Kant filed appeal under the Court of Appeals of the State of Florida against the decision of honorable judge of Trial Court. Argument Any person who takes the possession of article owns by merchant without his prior permission is liable for shoplifting. Shoplifting in Florida is considered very serious crime by the court of law. Meaning of shoplifting is same in every state, but every state deals in different manner with the charges of shoplifting. In general shoplifting is known as retail theft in Florida. These are the different ways through which retail theft can be committed. Section 812.015 (1) (d) of Title XLVI: Crimes (chapter 812), of Florida Statutes, states the meaning of retails theft (The 2016 Florida Statutes, n.d.; Expert Law, n.d.): When a person takes possession of the article owns by the merchant or takes away the article of the merchant without his prior permission. When a person change the price tags and labels of the product without the permission of a merchant. When goods are transferred from one container to another container without the knowledge of merchant. Use the benefit and full value of the product. Removing a shopping cart. Merchant can detain a person who committed the retail theft in a reasonable manner, for reasonable time for recovering the goods or prosecute the suspect. Section 812.014 of Florida statutes defined the retail theft as petit theft or grand theft, depending on the value of the property. This section also defines the penalties related to petit theft which are classified according to the category of theft. Penalties of theft are depend on the value of the article for which person is accused. Usually it is difficult for a person to commit grand theft. Therefore number of offences fall under the category of petit theft is high. Following are the charges and classification of the theft (shoplifting laws, n.d.; The 2016 Florida Statutes, n.d.): Amount of article Category of theft punishment Value of article is less than 100 Dollar. It is considered as 2nd degree of petit theft Imprisonment up to sixty days and fine up to 500$. Value of article is more than 100 Dollar but less than 300$. This is also applicable in case when value of article is less than 100$ but person committed the offence of theft for the second time. It is considered as 1st degree of petit theft Imprisonment up to one year and fine up to 1000$ (Hackworth Law PA, n.d.). Person convicted for second time in case of petit theft. It is considered as 1st or 2nd degree of petit theft. Imprisonment up to sixty days to one year and fine up to 50$ to 1000$. Value of article is more than 300 Dollar but less than 20000$. It is considered as 3rd degree of grand theft Imprisonment up to five year and fine up to 5000$. Value of article is more than 20000 Dollar but less than 100000$. It is considered as 2nd degree of grand theft Imprisonment up to fifteen year and fine up to 10000$. Value of article is more than 100000$. It is considered as 1st degree of grand theft Imprisonment up to thirty year and fine up to 10000$ (Florida Criminal Defense Lawyers, n.d.). In this case trial judge held that Mr. Sam Kant is guilty for petit theft of Hoovers Bean. Value of Handells Bean is less than $ 300. Therefore, Judge of county court held that appellant is guilty for 1st degree of petit theft and imposed penalty of $700 and imprisonment of 1 year. In the present case, Mr. Sam Kant tries to save the time, and put the case of Hoovers beans in the shopping cart and go straight to the bean shelf and add Handells beans to the cart. Sam put the cases of Hoovers beans in the cart which is filled with the goods which is returned and need re stocking in store. Mr. Kant move towards the exit of the store with the Handells beans in the shopping cart. The purpose of Mr. Kant is not to steal the item from the store, he want to exchange the Hoovers beans for Handells Beans. Before leaving the store Mr. Sam Kant put the cases of Hoovers beans in the cart which he believed contain the goods which is returned and need re stocking in store. Mr. Kant has no idea that he put the case of Hoovers beans in the cart which contain the donated items. These two factors must be present in the case of petit theft: It is necessary that accused unlawfully try to steal the property of the merchant. Accused steals the property with the intention of: Getting benefit from the property. Prevent the merchant from using the property (HW, n.d.). In this case Mr. Sam Kant both the factors of petit theft are not present. Mr. Sam Kant does not unlawfully or knowingly try to steal the cases of Handells Beans and also does derive any benefit from the cases of Handells Beans. It must be noted that Mr. Sam Kant already pays for the Hoovers Bean to the Bilmart, and he put the cases of Hoovers Bean in the cart. Intention in case of retail theft is very important factor and in the present case Mr. Sam Kant does not take away the cases with the wrong intention. Mr. Kant just tries to save his time and also tries to avoid the clashed with his wife; he put the cases of Hoovers Bean in the cart and takes away the cases of Handells Bean. According to section 812.015 (1) (d) of Title XLVI: Crimes (chapter 812), of Florida Statutes, a person is accused of retail theft if he try to demean the rights of the owner in the property and When a person takes possession of the article owns by the merchant or takes away the article of the merchant without his prior permission. In this case, Mr. Sam Kant takes away the article without the permission of the owner, but his intention was not guilty and he does not demean the right of the Bilmart. Therefore, in this case Mr. Sam Kant cannot accuse for shoplifting or petit theft. In this case Mr. Sam Kant was acted in good faith and his intention was fair. Mr. Sam Kant does not take the beans with wrong intention or for the purpose of stealing the beans. In case of petit theft and shoplifting intention matters very much. Guilty mind and intention of stealing property is the most important and required content of shoplifting and petit theft. Thus if the accused believed in good faith that he or she owned the article, has interest in the article and had any joint ownership then in such case lack of intention was good defense against the charge. We can understand this defense with the help of case law McClover v. State, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), in this case McClover was accused for petit theft for the goods which value over $ 300. Loss prevention officer of Wal-Mart was keeping an eye on the activities of McClover with the help of surveillance cameras and also recording the activities of McClover. He noticed that accused put some electronic items in her cart and move towards the exit of garden centre without paying for the items in the cart. The main issue was that the payment counter of garden centre was not working at that time and the exit of garden centre was also closed. Accused left the cart in which electronic items was present in the garden center and move towards the main exit and leave the store from the main exit. Officer of Wal-Mart found the behavior of McClover suspicious and called the police. Police follow McClover to her car and found an article of Wal-Mart which was from another Wal-Mart store. A question arises here that how can we identify the store of goods because goods usually contain the statement made in china. It was found that good which was found in the car was of another Wal-Mart store and McClover was found guilty. Judge imposed imprisonment of 48 months to the accused. Later on judge review the case of McClover and found that McClover does not leave the store with unpaid merchandise and she acted in good faith. Judge further said that accused leave the store without concealing any property. Therefore, judge said that good faith was a good defense in case of petit or grand theft (Orlando, 2013; Find Law, 2013). In this case Mr. Sam Kant was not leaving the store with any concealed goods and it was also found that Mr. Sam Kant put the cases of Hoovers beans in the cart in which he belief that items of return are kept. If individual was acted in good faith and belief that he had right to take property then in such case charges of retail theft was not proved and accused is not guilty for shoplifting (LEIFERT LEIFERT, n.d.). Therefore Mr. Sam Kant appeals that judge of county court made mistake in founding him guilty for the charges of shoplifting. Conclusion County Court of Florida also erred that Mr. Sam Kant was leaving the store without paying the bill and takes away the Handells Beans without the prior permission of Bilmart, and he also demean the rights of Bilmart. County Court of Florida also erred in founding that Mr. Sam Kant was guilty under Section 812.015 (1) (d) of Title XLVI: Crimes (chapter 812), of Florida Statutes for retail theft and imposed imprisonment of 1 year and fine up to $ 700. Relief However, appellant respectfully request from the honorable court that he must set free from the charges of shoplifting or retail theft. References: The 2016 Florida Statutes. Theft, Robbery, and Related Crimes (812.015). Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteSearch_String=URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.015.html. The 2016 Florida Statutes. Theft, Robbery, and Related Crimes (812.014). Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteURL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.014.html. Shoplifting laws. Shoplifting Charges and Penalties Nationwide. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://shopliftinglaws.org/florida/. Expert law. First time shoplifting offender in the state of Florida. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37875. Florida Criminal Defense Lawyers. Charged with Theft in Florida. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.myfloridadefenselawyer.com/shopliftingtheftfl/. Hackworth Law PA. What are the penalties associated with petty theft. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://bhtampa.com/blog/penalties-for-petty-theft/. HW. Petit Theft in Florida. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.husseinandwebber.com/crimes/theft-fraud/petit-theft/. HW. Theft Fraud. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.husseinandwebber.com/crimes/theft-fraud/grand-theft/. Find law, (2013). McCLOVER v. STATE. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1631196.html. Orlando, (2013). Wal-Mart Shoplifting Case Overturned on Appeal. Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.orlandocriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2013/11/wal-mart-shoplifting-case-over.html. Leifert leifert. Florida Statutes Section 812.014: Shoplifting (Retail Theft). Retrieved on 18th September 2016 from: https://www.leifertlaw.com/florida-statutes-section-812-014-shoplifting-retail-theft.html.