Penalties and Sentencing

Sentencing and penalties for California arson crimes vary depending on the following factors:

·    Type of conviction- malicious or reckless arson.
·    Type of property involved.
·    Whether anyone was injured or killed as a result of the fire.
·    Your past criminal history.
·    Results of psychiatric or psychological evaluations.

Misdemeanor reckless burning (California Penal Code Section 452).

·    Information or summary probation, up to one-year county jail time and a fine up to $1,000.

Felony arson or reckless burning (Penal Code 451 or 452).

·    Up to 16 months to nine years in a California State Prison and fines up to $50,000 or twice that amount if the crime was for actual or future financial gain and a third strike felony penalty if you have prior felony convictions under the California Three Strikes Law if you were convicted of malicious arson under Penal Code 451.

Aggravated arson.

·    Additional and consecutive sentences of one to five years in the California State Prison for either a prior felony conviction for malicious or reckless arson under either Penal Code 451 or 452, or if severe bodily injury occurs to a firefighter, peace officer or other emergency personnel as a result of the fire or you used an accelerating device to start the fire or to delay ignition.

The following aggravating circumstances require that you must register as a convicted California arson offender:

·    The fire was in retaliation against the person who you knew or believed owned the building such as a former landlord who may have evicted you.
·    You intentionally set fire to a building or structure you knew was a place of worship.
·    Prior arson convictions within ten years or if the damage or losses were in excess of $5,650,000 or you damaged five or more inhabited structures. You also face a California State Prison sentence of 10 years to life without the possibility of probation.
·    Murder, whether intentional or unintentional under the California felony murder rule during an arson that was committed intentionally is considered a first degree murder charge in California with a sentence of 25 years to life in prison, life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty.
·    You possessed, manufactured or disposed of flammable or combustible materials or a device in connection with arson or attempted arson.

The length of time you must register depends on factors such as whether you were an adult at the time of the conviction and when you were convicted. Failing to register is a misdemeanor charge with a six month to one-year sentence in the county jail.

Case Example:

A series of fires broke out on Friday November 12, 2010 near the Paiute Cultural Center, Brockman and Diaz lanes, Peoples’ Park behind the J Diamond Mobile Home Park, and also on Saturday November 13, 2010. One fire started around 7:30 p.m. in the trees and heavy brush off See Vee Lane on the Bishop Indian Reservation and a second fire erupted three hours later in the same area. California investigators from the Inyo Sheriff’s Department, Bishop Police and California Highway Patrol, with the assistance of Cal Fire and Bishop Fire, were able to narrow down three suspects and make arrests. The three suspects, teenage boys, Thomas Stone, 18, Jared Manga, 18 and a 16-year-old juvenile were arrested three days later on November 15, 2010 for arson and conspiracy for setting the fires. According to investigators, these fires could have caused a large amount of damage and potential loss of life had it not been for the quick responses by Bishop Fire and investigators, which helped avoid any tragedies. Bail for Stone and Manga was set at $250,000.

Defenses

Arson investigations require sophisticated and trained police units and teams with expertise in chemical analysis and forensic evidence who are able to determine the cause and origin of the fire. K-9 dogs are also used to determine the presence of ignitable liquids such as gasoline, charcoal lighter, lighter fluid, paint thinner, kerosene and others at the scene and on people or clothing.  Since the majority of arson crimes do not involve witnesses, the investigators must be able to link the evidence of the fire to the arsonist in order for the prosecutor to obtain a conviction.

If you have been arrested for arson in California, it is crucial that you hire a California criminal defense attorney to defend you. California arson laws are very strict and have harsh and severe punishments and penalties. The attorney can argue defenses such accident without intent, insufficient evidence, mistaken identity; you were falsely accused or wrongfully arrested.  The attorney works with expert arson witnesses who can explain to the judge or jury whether or not there was evidence at the scene of the fire that indicates an arson took place such as flammable liquids or melted copper wiring. If you are have been convicted of an arson requiring registration as a California convicted arson, you may be eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation. The attorney can assist you with this process or help you with obtaining an expungement under California penal Code 1203.4 so that you do not have to register as a convicted arson offender.

Even while he was awaiting his execution, the man pleaded with authorities claiming he was innocent.

Deadly Fire Leads to Execution

Cameron Willingham was working as an auto mechanic when his house, where his one-year-old twins and two-year-old stepdaughter were, was set on fire.

Willingham was charged, imprisoned and eventually executed for the deaths of the three children resulting from the fire.

Now, 17 years after the fire, and four years after Willingham’s execution, a state commission is being investigated for the decision.

Innocence Could be Proven too Late

In response to a complaint filed by The Innocence Project, the nine-member Texas Forensic Science Commission is now conducting a thorough investigation of Willingham’s criminal case.

Along with Willingham’s case, the commission is also going to investigate another arson fire that happened in 1986 in Texas and cost Ernest Willis his life.

(Source: Houston Chronicle)

Do you know someone who has been wrongly convicted of a crime? If so, please contact us to speak with an experienced and trustworthy attorney who will help your loved ones receive the legal support they need and deserve.

The man was jailed after being accused of selling counterfeit merchandise and being a street gang member.

Man Says He’s Been Victimized

Robert A. Singletary Sr. claimed on a witness stand last week that evidence informing a jury that he was a legitimate businessman was never presented before he was accused and jailed.

“I had radio ads, a tax ID number. All of that would have proven my intent,” explains Singletary.

Singletary was accused of knowingly selling fake Gucci and Louis Vuitton bags and apparel at a local store in Pennsylvania.

Prisoner Attempting to be Released

Singletary has been jailed for the past 15 months after being charged with trademark counterfeiting and deceptive business practices.

He has also been accused of being a member of the United Bloods Nation, a known street gang whose members were reportedly funneling proceeds from the store.

“My client denies any involvement with the Bloods. It’s clearly false,” says Singletary’s attorney, Richard Feudale.

Although Singetary admitted that he knew some of the items at the store were counterfeit, he said he never personally partook in the selling or buying of these goods.

(Source: The Daily Item)

Have you been wrongly accused of a crime? Please contact us to speak with an experienced attorney who will enable you to be compensated for any wrongdoing.

Runaway Teens Survive on Robbery Money

The teenagers, three 15 year-olds, one 16 year-old and a 17 year-old, allegedly act as a group to overwhelm their victims and rob them of their money. Authorities say that all of the teenagers are runaways from the East Bay who fled group and family homes. The group would survive with the money they robbed from people, staying in motels at night. The teens have even gone as far as robbing two people in the same day.

According to Police, the first incident in the robbery spree took place on the morning of November 4th when all four girls in the group approached two other women near East William and Seventh streets. The two women were knocked to the ground, battered, and had their wallets taken from them by the four runaway girls. Another incident took place on November 7th, when three of the teenage girls assaulted a woman near Sunol Street and made her go to a nearby ATM, withdraw cash for them, and quickly fled the scene. An hour or so after this incident, the same group of three of the teen girls assaulted another woman and demanded her purse; the woman refused, tried to run away, only to be chased, beaten and robbed by the teenage girls. Police said that this particular attack was quite violent.

Bystanders Help Police Capture Teen Robbers

The group of teens did not attack only women. As a complete group of five, the teens attacked two men, beat them to the ground, and stole their wallets before all fled the scene. The most current incident in this crime spree was one in which three of the females and the sole male robbed another woman for her purse, this time striking her from behind without notice. After this incident, some bystanders called 911 and helped Police find the five teens.

Police Asking Other Victims to Come Forward

Upon investigating the robbery spree, Police believe that the teens were committing crimes in a different manner than the crude “hit and run” manner that they used. Police hypothesize that in some unreported incidents, the teen girls would pose as prostitutes, luring men to them before they beat and robbed them for their money.

At this point, Police are hoping that any victims of these robberies come forward to help them build their case against the runaway teens.

In Yeidling v Riley, Plaintiff Yeidling was looking for campus housing and wanted to know the current status of the defendants property. As he entered the defendants property to inquire its current housing status, he stepped on a concrete cylinder on the ground and fell. The plaintiff held that he was classified as an invitee and hence demanded compensation from the landowner while the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was a trespasser and hence the landowner should not be held liable for the plaintiffs criminal actions. 705 So. 2d 426 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997)

What is a Trespasser?

A person is a trespasser where he enters on the property of another without any right, lawful authority, or express or implied invitation, permission, or license, not in the performance of any duty to the owner or person in charge or any business of such person, but merely for his own purposes, pleasure, or convenience, or out of curiosity, and without any enticement, allurement, inducement, or express or implied assurance of safety from the owner or person in charge. As otherwise expressed, a trespasser is a person entering or remaining on land in another’s possession without privilege to do so, created by the possessor’s consent or otherwise. Id., at 429.

What is a Licensee?

A person is a licensee where he enters on the property of another with the landowners consent or as the landowners guest. A social guest is typically considered a licensee.

Who is an Invitee?

A person is an invitee where he enters on the property of another with the landowners consent to bestow some material or commercial benefit upon the landowner. A business guest is typically considered an invitee.

Trespassing Lawsuits

The Court in Yeidling determined that the property owner was not negligent and did not owe the plaintiff any duty of care to warn of potential dangers posed by the concrete cylinders to the plaintiff because the plaintiff was a trespasser. The plaintiff entered the property out of curiosity, to inquire about the rental status of the property, without first contacting the landowner or letting the landowner know of his presence, and hence the plaintiff had no permission or privilege to be on the property. Id. The Court did not agree with the plaintiff that he was an invitee because the owner would have been aware of the plaintiffs presence on the property had there been a business relationship between the two parties. If the defendant had pressed charges against the plaintiff, the plaintiff could have been fined for trespassing. Hence, if an individual wanders onto another persons property without the owners invitation or consent, and without a business or commercial purpose, then the individual may be classified as a trespasser.

In Dance v Commonwealth, a security guard observed Dance remove a tube of Benadryl and a tube of Lanasor cream from their respective packaging, and place the tubes into his pocket. After wandering around the store, Dance exited the store without purchasing any merchandise. However, before exiting the store, Dance emptied his pockets and removed the tube of Benadryl and Lanasor cream into a basket at the front of the store. 2003 Va. App. LEXIS 393. Although Dance did not actually walk out of the store with the Benadryl and Lanasor cream tubes, the Court agreed with the opinion in Bryant v Commonwealth 455 S.E.2d 667, 670 (Va. 1994) and determined that Dance committed trespass by invading the stores constructive possession by removing the items from their packaging and by removing the alarm sensors. Furthermore, any movement of the trespassed property, no matter how slight the movement, was evidence of asportation (the act of removing a property), a necessary element of larceny. Id. at 4. Thus, if an individual removes an item from its original packaging, the individual is trespassing on the stores property and any slight movement by the individual with the property becomes evidence of asportation, potentially leading to more serious crimes like larceny.

Bozeman Mortuary Association v. Fairchild et al. introduces another type of a trespasser: the unintentional trespasser. Unintentional trespassers come into possession of anothers property innocently. In Fairchild, a stolen car was sold to a sheriff, who then sold it to his son-in-law, Fairchild. The original owner of the car sought to reclaim the car and damages that he had incurred while the car was stolen. 68 S.W.2d 756 (Ky. Ct. App. 1934). The Court determined that Fairchild did not know that the car was stolen and hence he was an unintentional trespasser. However, the unintentional trespasser is stripped of his right to the property and acquires no greater right than the thief. The Court stated,

Public welfare and public policy will not allow one to assert any rights to stolen property or to anything he spends or puts on it as against the owner. To hold otherwise would be to encourage the nefarious business of handling stolen automobiles which has grown to such amazing and alarming proportions. Id. at 760.

Unintentional Trespassing

Accordingly, if an individual comes into possession of a stolen item without knowledge of its illegitimacy, the individual becomes an unintentional trespasser. Furthermore, if the original owner of the property seeks to reclaim his property, the unintentional trespasser must return the property to the owner because the original owners rights to the property were erroneously and criminally taken from him by the thief. In such cases, the only recourse the unintentional trespasser has is to seek compensation from the thief or the person whom he purchased the stolen goods from, which more times than not, has unsatisfactory results.

In United States v. Montgomery, the defendant was found to be trespassing on government land by allowing his cattle to graze on the land. 155 F. Supp. 633 (Mont. Dist. Ct. 1957). The defendant responded that he was not financially capable of building a fence to divide the two properties and that he monitored his livestock to the best of his ability. The defendant moved to dismiss the suit because he claimed that his actions were inadvertent and innocent. Id. However, the court stated that, an act does not cease to be a violation of a law and of a decree merely because it may have been done innocently. Id., at 636. Thus an individual who inadvertently trespasses onto another persons property is not exempt from punishment merely because his actions are innocent.

Conclusion

Innocent acts such as a customer inspecting an item outside of its packaging, a buyer purchasing a used item from an unknown source, or a curious spectator inspecting a neighbors flower garden are performed with innocuous motivations. However, such inadvertent actions may be considered trespassing and could lead to graver criminal circumstances.

Airman First Class Roelofs had three years and nine months of active military service. During his military service, Roelofs was charged with possessing three grams of heroin with intent to distribute and prosecuted by civilian authorities, rather than by the military. He was sentenced to confinement for eighteen months and placed on probation for three years. Subsequent to his conviction, the Air Force discharged Roelofs from military service based on the conviction in civilian court. Roelofs unsuccessfully challenged the militarys authority to administratively discharge him based solely on the civilian conviction. (Roelofs v. Secretary of the Air Force, (D.C. Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 594, 595.)

Military Administrative Discharge for Criminal Charges

An administrative discharge is a military personnel action, which is the rough equivalent of being fired from a civilian job. A service members time in service, rank, and the characterization (type) of discharge the military wants to impose determines whether the service member will simply be given written notification of the militarys intent to discharge (papered out or chaptered out) or given the opportunity to appear before an administrative discharge board. In either case, the servicemember has certain due process rights that are specific to the administrative discharge process.

Every branch of the military has its own service-specific discharge regulations, although the regulations have many similarities. For example, in the Air Force, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, an airman convicted by civilian authorities of certain types of offenses may be involuntarily separated from the military, with an honorable, general under honorable, or under other than honorable conditions discharge. These different characterizations of the service members term of service have significance pertaining to the entitlement of Veteran’s benifits, ability to reenlist, or the recoupment of any special pay or allowances received by the service member, including Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits.

Although a service member can be given an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge at the end the administrative separation process, he cannot be discharged dishonorably, which is one of two types of punitive discharges that can only result from a conviction at court-martial a military trial, with the other being a bad-conduct discharge.

Effects of Receiving a Less than Honorable Discharge

Regardless of whether a discharge results from an administrative separation or a court-martial, anything less than honorable is viewed as derogatory and inevitably stigmatizes the recipient. A less-than-honorable discharge results in loss of numerous benefits in both the federal and state systems and limits opportunities for both public and private employment: almost all employment and job application forms require a statement as to military service and the type of discharge received. (Bland v Connally, (D.C. Cir. 1961) 293 F.2d 852, 858.)

In Davis v. United States of America, Davis had over 2 years of active military service. Due to a chronic arthritic condition, which he allegedly incurred during active military service, Davis was awaiting medical discharge. Under such assertions, Davis was eligible for disability compensation. While awaiting medical discharge, Davis was arrested for automobile theft and ultimately convicted of a felony for which he received a two-year sentence. Although Davis was on official leave status at the time of his arrest, he was involuntarily discharged from the Air Force because of his felony charge. (Davis, (5th Cir. 1971) 431 F.2d 409.) Accordingly, the Veterans Administration denied his disability compensation claim pursuant to Title 38, U.S.C.A. 101(2) because he was, discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.

The Court in Roelofs recognized that a less-than-honorable discharge stigmatizes an individual. Furthermore, the Court opined that an undesirable discharge is over and above the stigma of a felony because it indicates that the serviceman did not perform adequately on the job. Thus, an undesirable discharge is warranted only if it results in deficiency in performance of military duties or has a direct impact upon the military. Nonetheless, the military may discharge a serviceman other than honorably without showing that the offense was service-related. That means that the military may look into the individuals actions and records outside of the military service if his conduct impacts the overall effectiveness of the military, whether directly or indirectly.

Military Protection from Civil and Administrative Legal Actions

Service members have some protections from civil and administrative legal actions taken against them while in military service pursuant to the Service members Civil Relief Act (SCRA), Public Law 108-189, codified in the United States Code at 50 U.S.C. App. 501-596. The SCRA completely supersedes the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) of 1940. In Mayfair Sales, Inc. v. Sams, Sams attempted to invoke the SSCRA in order to stay, or postpone a proceeding in which he was a defendant in a civil case. (Mayfair Sales, Inc. v. Sams, (1st Cir. 1964) 169 So. 2d 150). At the time, the Act provided that:

At any stage thereof any action or proceeding in any court in which a person in military service is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant be stayed as provided in this Act unless, in the opinion of the court, the ability of plaintiff to prosecute the action or the defendant to conduct his defense is not materially affected by reason of his military service. (50 U.S.C.A. App. 521.)

Pursuant to the Act, the Court in Mayfair held that Sams was not entitled to a stay of proceeding simply because he was in the military, and must show that his military service materially affected his ability to appear and defend his interests. The SCRA broadens the SSCRAs limited application from only civil matters to civil and administrative matters (e.g., child support or paternity determination).

Some courts have adopted similar provisions for defendants in pending criminal cases but these provisions are very state-specific For example, the 44-97.1 of the Code of Virginia provides:

Any party to or attorney in an action or proceeding in any courtwho has been ordered to participate in annual active duty for training or temporary active duty in the reserve forces of any of the armed services of the United States, National Guard, or naval militia shall be entitled to a continuance, not to exceed three weeks, as a matter of right during the period of such duty, provided the continuance is requested at least four days prior to the first day for which the continuance is sought.

It is critical to ensure that the laws of the state in which the stay is sought have been researched and applied as required by each state.

Conclusion

The military has an overall interest, in terms of morale and efficiency, in insisting on a corps of servicemen who abstain from serious criminal activity. (Roelofs v. Secretary of the Air Force, (D.C. Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 594, 598.) A criminal charge will not only create obstacles for individuals to become members and serve in the military, but a criminal record may also cause members of the military to be involuntarily and less-than-honorably discharged, which could lead to harsh social, economic, and psychological stigma normally associated with a felony conviction in a civilian court.

As the trend from front-yard garage sales to internet-based auction sites continues, today’s consumers are finding more and more obscure and unique items online. What they may not know however, is that these items can also sometimes be stolen goods. The recent online trend of purchasing hard-to-find items at bargain prices is not only an opportunity for budding entrepreneurs to market their goods, but also a chance for some to purge their stolen property. The complexities of this new phenomenon can thus raise a variety of legal questions regarding ownership and responsibility. When stolen property is purchased and law enforcement personnel conclude their investigation at your doorstop, not only can the police immediately seize the goods that were paid for, but you may also be charged with a criminal offense. The criminal charges of buying or receiving stolen property or possession of stolen property generally involves taking possession of property with knowledge that it has been obtained through theft, embezzlement, fraud, larceny or extortion by someone else. Therefore, generally speaking, conviction depends on two factors: gaining control of the item and knowing it was stolen at the time it was received. The criminal intent may be inferred if these two factors can be proven. The difficulty with situations involving the purchase of items over the internet or even through the classified section of a local newspaper is that one has to prove they did not know the item was stolen. In fact, the police assume a buyer should know when they are buying stolen property because there are often suspicious circumstances surrounding the sale (i.e., the seller only accepts money orders, the payment address is different from the location address or the price seems too good to be true). In an attempt to stop trafficking and fencing operations, buying stolen property in itself has been defined as a criminal offense. Receiving, concealing, possessing, buying or transferring are usually the acts associated with crimes of fencing (acting as a middleman) or trafficking in stolen goods. What complicates the legal situation even further is the fact that the police cannot always determine whether one buyer is part of the illegal operation or just an innocent buyer. Consequently, the laws in this area tend to be quite strict and usually favor the original owner/victim. It is important to note that paying for the stolen goods or intending to collect the reward for returning them are generally not valid defenses. Therefore, if the police charge someone with buying stolen property and the accused cannot prove that they didn’t know it was stolen at the time of purchase, they can face a myriad of consequences, both in criminal law and perhaps civil law as well.

Consequences of Receiving Stolen Property

Some of these consequences include county jail or commitment to state prison, with a term of probation or parole thereafter, restitution of the value of the item(s) stolen made to the victim, and court fines. Therefore, it is always best to consult an attorney licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred or where the case is pending to guide you through the complex maze of the criminal justice system.

Criminal Prosecution for Purchasing Stolen Property

In some instances, prior to charges being filed or thereafter, a smart and experienced attorney may be able to convince the prosecutor not to file criminal charges or to file less serious charges than originally anticipated. In other cases, the case will be fought in court and may possibly go to trial if a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached. If the case goes to trial, the prosecution generally will have to prove three elements: (1) that the accused gained control of the item, (2) that the accused knew it was stolen and (3) that the accused intended to deprive the rightful owner of their interest in the property. If there is a conviction after trial, the consequences that follow depend upon the state law controlling the case and whether the conviction was for a misdemeanor or a felony charge. In some states, if the value of the property stolen is more than $100, that can form the basis for a felony. In some states, the threshold amount is a value greater than $400. So you can see based upon the above, it is always in the consumer’s best interest to be extremely cautious when purchasing items from unknown sources or from strangers. Consider the following tips as good steps to take before completing any transactions:

• Avoid transactions where the seller asks only that payment be made by a money order or an instant money transfer.
• Avoid transactions where the payment address is different from the location address.
• Be careful about giving out banking information and details.
• Find out as much as possible about the seller. Read the seller’s trading history and feedback reviews. Also, if you’re still uneasy, contact the seller with remaining questions.
• Avoid sellers who take a long time to reply to questions or who try to persuade you to trade offline.
• If the item is expensive, use a credible escrow service so that you have time to look over the goods and approve them before paying the seller.

If you happen to be the subject of a criminal investigation or a criminal prosecution, it would be in your best interest to consult with a licensed attorney who is experienced in cases of this type. It is not the best idea to try to negotiate with law enforcement or the prosecutor without an attorney beside you to protect your interests.

Petty theft

“Theft” is committed by stealing anything of value. The value of the property relates to the classification of the crime and the nature and extent of the penalty that will be imposed upon conviction. People v. Kelly, 214 N.E.2d 290 (1st Dist. 1965). There are two categories of theft, which is also called larceny: grand larceny and petit, or petty larceny. States are entitled to set their own guidelines to distinguish between grand and petty larceny. In most jurisdictions, grand larceny is considered a felony while petty larceny is categorized as a misdemeanor. However, under most theft statutes, the value of the property determines the punishment. The Model Penal Code at 223(2) comments:

(a) Theft constitutes a felony of the third degree if the amount involved exceeds $500, or if the property stolen is a firearm, automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motor boat, or other motor-propelled vehicle, or in the case of theft by receiving stolen property, if the receiver is in the business of buying or selling stolen property. (b) Theft not within the preceding paragraph constitutes a misdemeanor, except that if the property was not taken from the person or by threat, or in breach of a fiduciary obligation, and the actor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount involved was less than $50, the offense constitutes a petty misdemeanor.

No matter how small the value of the property, a conviction of even the most minor larceny may leave a permanent imprint on an individuals criminal record. This record cannot only affect a person if they are convicted of another offense, but also in non-criminal, daily life situations, such as job hunting and housing.

Employment and Criminal History

Although an employer may not discriminate against an individual based on criminal history, statutes have allowed employers to inquire about an applicants criminal history. In Shapira v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., the Court found that the defendant employer was obligated by the Securities Exchange Act (SEA) to keep and maintain current records of any arrests for larceny of any person in its employ, and it was permitted by the SEA to inquire about such arrests concerning prospective employees. Therefore, the Court held that the defendant employer did not violate the New York Human Rights Laws by inquiring into an allegedly sealed arrest record of the plaintiff, who had applied for employment with the defendant. 225 F.Supp.2d 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Although the plaintiff was mistakenly arrested for petty larceny and there was no indication that the plaintiffs arrest was a genuine factor in the employers decision not to hire him, Shapira confirms that employers are allowed to inquire, and in some instances, obligated to inquire, about an applicants criminal history.

Although employers may inquire into an individuals criminal past, they cannot discriminate on the basis of the applicants criminal past. In Adler v Montefiore Hosp. Assn of Western Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that the right to engage in common occupations as part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action that is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. 311 A.2d 634 (Pa. 1973). Unless a state has a reasonable purpose, it cannot interfere with an individuals right to employment. In Nixon v Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania court commented that to forever foreclose a permissible means of gainful employment because of an improvident act in the distant past completely loses sight of any concept of forgiveness for prior errant behavior and adds yet another stumbling block along the difficult road of rehabilitation. 789 A.2d 376, 381 (Pa. 2001). However, unfavorable biases are likely to arise once employers learn of an applicants criminal record, even if the record consists of petty theft, subjecting the applicant to stricter review.

Finding Housing When You Have a Criminal Record

Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 960.204 requires public housing authorities to establish and adopt policies to preclude admission of applicants who may be expected to have a detrimental effect on the residents of the housing project environment. Such review includes the applicants past criminal activity.

When selecting tenants, 24 CFR 960.205(b)(3) allows housing authorities to consider “[a] history of criminal activity involving crimes of physical violence to persons or property and other criminal acts which would adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of other tenants.”

Public housing policy is aimed at safeguarding other tenants from possible criminal acts against them, yet such practice creates difficulty for an individual with a criminal record, even a misdemeanor, to obtain (public) housing.

Prior Records Counted in Sentencing

In federal criminal law, prior sentences, including misdemeanors where incarceration is not imposed, are counted in an individuals criminal history score. The criminal history score affects the sentencing of repeat offenders when they are convicted of a new crime. Pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines 4A1.1(a) (c), sentences for misdemeanors and petty offenses are included when calculating the criminal history category for sentencing.

The United States Sentencing Guidelines 4A1.2 (c)(1) provides exceptions where misdemeanors and petty offenses are not factored in the calculation of ones criminal history: careless or reckless driving, gambling, prostitution, and trespassing are a few of the listed exceptions. Hitchhiking, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, minor traffic infractions, public intoxication, and vagrancy are never included when calculating ones criminal history score. In United States v. Harris, the defendant argued that her prior shoplifting conviction should not have been factored into calculate her criminal history score because shoplifting is a petty offense that is similar to the exceptions in 4A1.2 (c)(1). 325 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2003). However, the Court joined the majority of jurisdictions and stated that convictions for petty theft or shoplifting are not similar to the offenses listed in 4A1.2 (c)(1) because petty larceny requires a trespass and a taking of anothers property. Hence, the Court affirmed the sentence in which defendants prior conviction of shoplifting was calculated into her criminal history score. Id.

Conclusion

A conviction for petty theft can have major repercussions than perceived at first blush. The misdemeanor is permanently recorded on an individuals criminal history and can follow the individual for the rest of his life. Not only will the conviction impact upon the individual if he is ever arrested and convicted for a subsequent crime, but it can affect the individual on a more basic level when he attempts to seek employment or housing. Employers and housing authorities cannot discriminate on the basis of ones criminal history but they are allowed to inquire and have access to those records. In a highly competitive job market, one misdemeanor conviction can mean the difference between a career and a job, between having a home and living on the streets.

Robbery Overview

Robbery is the act of depriving someone of their personal property while in their presence through the use of force or fear. The property can either be taken from the person or from their immediate surroundings. If a deadly weapon such as a gun is used or the victim suffers physical harm, the act can be classified as “armed” or “aggravated” and the severity of the punishment can be increased. The actual elements of theft include trespassing, taking, carrying away, the fact that it is someone else’s property, the intent to steal, the presence of the person who owns the property, and intimidation. Unless all seven of these elements are present, theft as defined by the law, does not occur.

Consequences Of Robbery

The various punishments ascribed to theft can depend on the type and the value of the stolen property, but can include:

• imprisonment
• probation
• restitution (a penalty imposed which restores the worth of the property to the owner)
• fines
• court approved counseling
• other

Chances That Any Of The Above Consequences Will Occur

The likelihood that any of these consequences will be applied and the degree to which they are proscribed generally depends on what was stolen and its market value. Known either as petty theft or grand theft, the difference can mean a greater or lesser punishment. Examples of grand theft include, but are not limited to, stolen property that exceeds $400 in value or whenever a firearm is taken. The theft of items which have less monetary value, usually under $400, can be classified as petty theft. Grand theft is generally punishable by imprisonment in state prison. Petty theft is generally punishable by imprisonment in county jail.

Such punishments are the general rule and can increase or decrease based on additional factors. For example, a person’s past criminal record can increase the likelihood that a more severe punishment will be proscribed. Additional factors can include, but are not limited to, the attitude of the community and the court toward the type of crime, the degree of media attention to the case, and other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Possible Defenses For Robbery or Theft Charges

There are various defenses that can potentially be used in cases of theft and they include factual innocence, a lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime, or the issue of true owner, in which the accused argues he is the lawful owner of the property. The issue of true owner largely relies on whether the alleged theft occurred under felonious circumstances. That is, if the defendant was under the good faith belief that he was the actual owner of the property, then it is possible for him to be not guilty of robbery. In addition, there are many other defenses that can be used in particularly unique cases.

Helping Your Theft Case

There are a number of steps a person can take as soon as they are charged with a crime of theft or robbery. The first is to stringently exercise the right to remain silent. Keeping silent enables the accused to learn exactly what is going on, calmly analyze the facts and make sure they do not weaken their case in any way. In all criminal cases, retaining qualified counsel as soon as possible should be a priority. No matter how minor the charge, any person charged with a criminal offense can benefit from a competent criminal defense attorney. Even if the lawyer consulted does not ultimately argue the case on that person’s behalf, a consultation can help the accused figure out the nature of the charges filed, what options they have and what could happen in the event of a conviction. Additional steps to help your case include gathering documents which point to your good character and keeping a list of significant events and potential witnesses. It is also important to note that under no circumstances should a person investigate their own case.

What We Can Do To Defend Your Rights Against Theft and Robbery Charges

The criminal defense attorneys at Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys are well versed in the laws regarding robbery and theft and also have first-hand experience advocating such cases. Because of their experience, Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys recognizes the importance of communicating with any client and making sure they understand what is happening at every stage of the case. As an attorney working on behalf of a client who has been charged with theft, we can help by immediately beginning to prepare the case. This early preparation stage involves gathering all the helpful facts to the case, legal research and identifying what defense will be used. Attorneys at Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys also commence interviews with the police and the prosecutor in order to minimize or eliminate your case when possible. In addition, the attorneys are familiar with motions seeking to reduce or eliminate any bail that might be set.

At all stages of the case, attorneys from Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys will be diligent and provide a vigorous defense in order to ensure that all facets of the case are being looked at and that a client is not being deprived of any of their legal rights.

In the event that a case goes to court, attorneys at Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys have experience developing appropriate motions that may dismiss the case, or that may suppress evidence. Other helpful evidence which attorneys can bring to the courts attention include coordinating a private lie detector test for the client or obtaining an evaluation from a court approved psychologist pointing to counseling as an alternative to jail time. In appropriate cases, attorneys may negotiate the terms of a jail sentence. Nevertheless, in all cases, Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys will ensure that a client is looked after at every stage of the case and that their rights are always protected.

It seems like such a simple decision at first.

You look around and all the other store clerks are busy with other customers, no one is looking your way, and the item you want isn’t even worth that much.

So you look around once more, stealthily swipe the item into your jacket pocket, walk around the store for a few more minutes and make an inconspicuous exit.

But then the security guard taps you on your shoulder and the next thing you know the store is pressing charges. It’s only shoplifting, you think. But it’s not that simple.

Petty Theft Can Carry Hefty Consequences

In a world where the intricacies of the legal system can be as convoluted as the most advanced mathematical concept, any criminal charge or conviction can carry a wealth of hidden consequences. Often referred to as the “collateral consequences” of a criminal conviction, these implications can come into play under a variety of circumstances. Whether its limited employment opportunities or a change in legal status, the establishment of a criminal record carries with it far-reaching consequences.

The legal definition of shoplifting differs from state to state, but usually refers to the theft of property which is worth less than $500 and which occurs with the intent to deprive the owner of that piece of property. As a result , whether it’s a $2 dollar candy bar, a $15 dollar CD, or a $100 television, a charge of petty theft can be brought against the perpetrator.

Punishments for Criminal Charges

There are a variety of potential outcomes associated with a criminal charge and they include, but are not limited to: a criminal investigation with no arrest, an arrest but dismissal of the case because of a procedural mistake made on the part of the police, an arrest followed by a plea bargain made with the government where the person pleads “guilty” in exchange for a lighter sentence, an arrest followed by a trial where the person is found “not guilty”, or an arrest followed by a trial and a guilty verdict and conviction. In the case of a guilty verdict or a plea bargain, the result is a conviction and a criminal record is established.

Consequences for Shoplifting

In some rare cases shoplifting-related offenses can carry additional options. It may be possible to ultimately get a charge withdrawn or stayed and thus stave off a criminal record. Such alternative options can depend on the circumstances of the offense, the person’s personal background, and the jurisdiction in which the person was charged. But once again, such alternatives are rare and, for the most part, if a person chooses to shoplift the chances of gaining a criminal record are high.

One of the most troublesome collateral consequences of a criminal record can come into play when employment is considered. Federal law and most state agencies now requires background checks and allow disqualification based on conviction in a wide variety of employment areas including education, healthcare services, child and eldercare, financial institutions and transportation. In fact, according to the Sentencing Project, a non-profit organization recognized for its criminal justice system policy analysis, the inability to find or maintain a job has been one of the main reasons for recidivism.

The capability of employers to run background checks has also increased in recent years with the surge of companies, even some online, offering quick and easy record checks. Thus, a criminal background will almost surely be found and considered in most employment decisions. While more than half of the states bar an employer from disqualifying a potential employee on the sole basis of his criminal record, it is important to note that a wide variety of exceptions exist. In fact, not only do many state laws allow for a multitude of exemptions to such discriminatory practices, but there are few means of enforcement. Therefore, some employers have little incentive to not make employment decisions based on the existence of a candidates criminal record.

Permanence of a Criminal Record

Once someone has been labeled a criminal, it may well be impossible to erase that record. While opportunities for expungement do exist, they are rare, require court filings, and do not necessarily eradicate the conviction for all purposes. In order to get a criminal record expunged, meaning a notation is made in the record which states it is off limits to everyone except law enforcement personnel, numerous applications and guidelines have to be met. The Sentencing Project further reports that while every jurisdiction has at least some way for a criminal offender to mitigate the collateral consequences of a conviction, relief mechanisms such as expungement or pardons, are inaccessible and unreliable to the vast majority of people. Moreover, in many states, the ability to expunge or seal a record is offered only to first offenders, minor offenders sentenced only to probation or misdemeanants. In any case, the establishment of a criminal record is often difficult to eradicate or mitigate.

In retrospect, it may seem as if the choice to shoplift is not so simple and is instead fraught with ever-widening consequences. The decision to shoplift may mean free merchandise in the near future, but can in reality mean a lifetime of employment opportunities eradicated. Once established, a criminal record is often difficult if not impossible to erase, and a free CD or purse may no longer seem worth it.