Townshend v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Townshend v. State

965 So. 2d 236, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13946, 2007 WL 2509813

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2007

DocketNo. 5D05-1520

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 965 So. 2d 236 (Townshend v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Townshend v. State, 965 So. 2d 236, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13946, 2007 WL 2509813 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

965 So. 2d 236, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13946, 2007 WL 2509813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townshend-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack