DARRIN L. MCCRAY, 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.
Darrin McCray, a Lieutenant with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, appealed his convictions for organized scheme to defraud and official misconduct arising from his manipulation of an overtime assignment computer system. The Fourth District reversed his conviction for organized scheme to defraud, finding that the lost opportunity for other deputies to work overtime did not constitute 'property' under Florida law, but affirmed his official misconduct convictions.
McCray's conviction for organized scheme to defraud is reversed because the alleged lost opportunity for other deputies to work overtime pay does not constitute 'property' as traditionally defined in criminal prosecutions. His convictions for official misconduct are affirmed. The case is remanded for resentencing on the official misconduct convictions.
[1] A conviction for organized scheme to defraud requires the obtaining of property, and the loss of an opportunity for others to earn overtime pay does not constitute proper…
[2] Supervisors with administrative rights may assign other employees to cover immediate, uncovered, or hard-to-cover overtime shifts.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“no statutory violation occurred because the alleged "lost ... opportunity for other deputies to work for overtime pay ... simply does not fit the definition of property traditionally used in criminal prosecutions."”
The court's rationale for reversing the organized scheme to defraud conviction, establishing that lost economic opportunity does not constitute prosecutable property under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCray, a Lieutenant with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, assigned himself or others to approximately 260 overtime shifts between September 20…
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 Organized Scheme To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
Darrin McCray (“McCray”), a former Lieutenant with the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office (“the Sheriff’), appeals his convictions for organized scheme to defraud in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2006), and nine counts of official misconduct in violation of section 838.022, Florida Statutes (2006). These convictions resulted from allegations that McCray and other Sheriffs employees manipulated the overtime assignment computer system and obtained more hospital guard assignments than allowable under the Sheriffs policy. We reverse McCray’s conviction for organized scheme to defraud. We affirm his convictions for official misconduct without further discussion.
By way of background, the Sheriff provides guards for overtime duty when an inmate or arrested person is admitted to the hospital. In order to assure broader access to available hospital shifts, the Sheriff established policies and procedures designed to limit employees’ abilities to sign up for shifts in the computer system. These procedures included restricting how far in advance an employee could sign up for a shift, allowing employees to sign up for only one shift at a time, and imposing a 48-hour waiting period between sign-up opportunities. Further, according to the Sheriffs policy, employees generally could not sign up another deputy for an overtime shift. Lieutenants and other supervisors, however, had administrative rights that *604permitted them to assign other employees to cover immediate, uncovered, or hard-to-cover shifts.
After receiving complaints about certain individuals “blocking out” overtime slots, the Sheriff commenced an internal affairs investigation, which led to the underlying criminal investigation against McCray. From September 2006 to September 2007, McCray assigned himself or others to work approximately 260 overtime shifts. Of those, McCray assigned himself to approximately 116 overtime shifts, even though McCray worked only 14 overtime shifts due to prisoner release or alternate coverage. McCray worked every shift for which he received overtime pay. In addition, McCray assigned several individuals to work overtime shifts without their knowledge or permission.
Based on these facts, the State charged McCray and five others with organized scheme to defraud. This Court reviewed the conviction of one of McCray’s co-defendants on the same charge and determined that the alleged pattern of conduct did not constitute a criminal violation under section 817.034(4)(a)(3).1 Dent v. State, — So.3d -, 2013 WL 440117, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D287 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 6, 2013), review denied, 116 So.3d 1263 (Fla.2013). Specifically, we noted that no statutory violation occurred because the alleged “lost ... opportunity for other deputies to work for overtime pay ... simply does not fit the definition of property traditionally used in criminal prosecutions.... ” Id. Likewise, McCray’s conduct does not support a conviction for organized scheme to defraud.
Accordingly, we remand for resentenc-ing on the convictions for official misconduct.
Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded.
CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.