MICHAEL K. TOWNSHEND, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellate court affirmed racketeering and most identity theft and grand theft convictions but reversed two convictions (counts 10 and 15) due to insufficient evidence on authorization and check fraud elements.
Convictions for criminal use of personal identification information and grand theft must be vacated when the State fails to prove lack of authorization or fails to present evidence of the essential elements of the crime.
[1] To prove fraudulent use of personal identification information under Florida law, the State must establish that the defendant willfully and fraudulently used or possessed…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael K. Townshend was charged with one count of racketeering, ten counts of criminal use of personal identification information, and six counts of …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Authorization Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael K. Townshend was charged by information with one count of racketeering1 (count 1), ten counts of criminal use of personal identification information2 (counts 2-11), and six counts of grand theft3 (counts 12-17). Mr. Townshend was found guilty on all counts, except count 14. He now appeals. Having carefully considered the record, we affirm in all respects except as to counts 10 and 15. As to those counts, we reverse and remand with directions that those convictions be vacated.
To prove fraudulent use of personal identification information, the State must show that the defendant: “(1) willfully and fraudulently [used or possessed] with intent to fraudulently use; (2) another person’s personal identification information; and (3) without that person’s authorization or prior consent.” Sibley v. State, 955 So. 2d 1222, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see § 817.568(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). With respect to count 10, the State failed to prove that the alleged victim had not authorized Mr. Townshend to use his personal information. Accordingly, this conviction must be vacated. As to count 15, grand theft, the State failed to present any evidence that Mr. Townshend passed a fraudulently written check, thereby obtaining goods from an office supply store. Consequently, this conviction must be vacated as well.
In all other respects, the convictions are affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PLEUS, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . § 895.03(3), Fla. Stat. (2003).
. § 817.568(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003).
.§ 812.014(2)(c)l., Fla. Stat. (2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 57 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ubt that the defendant: “(1) willfully and fraudulently [used or possessed] with intent to fraudulently use; (2) another person’s personal identification information; and (3) without that person’s authorization or prior consent.” Townshend v. State, 965 So. 2d 236, 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Sibley v. State, 955 So. 2d 1222, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)); see also § 817.568(2)(a). Consent from the victim to use his personal information is a -valid defense to criminal use of personal identification informati…
-
State v. Roberts, 143 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…v. State, 57 So. 3d 904, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that defense that victim consented to defendant’s use of personal identification information, if proven, would render State unable to establish every element of the crime); Townshend v. State, 965 So. 2d 236, 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (vacating conviction for criminal use of personal identification information where State failed to prove that victim “had not authorized Mr. Townshend to use his personal information”). Omission of a Duty Imposed by Florida…
Authorities Cited
- Sibley v. State, 955 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)