A successful defense against a petit theft charge in Florida requires challenging the state’s evidence and demonstrating a lack of intent or an alternative explanation. While the defendant was seen taking the merchandise, the key element of petit theft is intent to permanently deprive the merchant of the property. I’d scrutinize surveillance footage and witness testimony for inconsistencies in intent, such as attempts to conceal the merchandise. I’d also explore duress or a misunderstanding, like being pressured by the co-defendant to commit the offense or believing the other defendant had paid for the merchandise. The stop of the vehicle and subsequent search would be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds, though this may be weak since probable cause was likely. It’s still important to consider.
Unfortunately, the presence of merchandise from other stores and a device used for shoplifting strengthens the state’s case regarding intent and a potential pattern of activity. I’d argue to sever the issue or argue its irrelevance to the specific incident, preventing the prosecution from referencing it since the items taken from TJ Maxx were recovered by an employee. Investigating the co-defendant’s involvement for exculpatory information or to shift culpability is crucial.
Given the presence of merchandise from other stores, a device for shoplifting, a co-defendant, and marijuana and paraphernalia, the charges could be amended to more serious offenses, including RICO charges under Florida Statute 895.03. To establish a RICO violation, the state must prove an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity. The stolen items and the device suggest an organized retail theft pattern, which could be predicate acts for a RICO charge. The co-defendant supports the “enterprise” element. While marijuana possession is usually a separate charge, its discovery could paint a picture of a criminal enterprise involved in illicit activities. Defending against a RICO amendment involves attacking the “enterprise” element, arguing that the acts don’t constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity,” or that the predicate acts can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I’d also highlight any lack of connection between the marijuana and the alleged theft ring to prevent its inclusion in a RICO scheme.
Finally, it’s important to be mindful of what’s at stake. A petit theft charge can range from 60 to 364 days in jail and/or a fine of $500 to $1000, depending on the degree. The prosecution can aggregate thefts across counties, involving a co-defendant, and the use of theft tools to allege a pattern of racketeering activity. Under Florida Statute 895.03, RICO charges are severe, with a maximum of 30 years in prison and substantial fines. To defend against a potential RICO amendment, I would argue that the individual acts don’t constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” as defined by the statute, which requires at least two related and continuous predicate acts. I would also sever the co-defendant’s case since her involvement strengthens the appearance of an organized criminal enterprise. Ultimately, it’s important to leave no stone unturned, so I would explore a plea bargain for the petit theft to avoid elevated RICO charges.
If you or a loved one needs the assistance of one of our Criminal Defense Attorneys, don’t hesitate to call us at 352-WIN-4YOU We are available 24/7 and we offer payment plans.