McElroy v. State, 6 Div. 727
Decision Date | 25 May 1990 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 727 |
Citation | 571 So.2d 353 |
Parties | Charles Ronald McELROY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Gary L. Blume, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Sandra Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Charles Ronald McElroy, was convicted of two counts of theft of property in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-8-3, Code of Alabama 1975; two counts of theft of property in the second degree, in violation of § 13A-8-4, Code of Alabama 1975; and one count of forgery in the second degree, in violation of § 13A-9-3, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant received two 20-year sentences on the first degree theft convictions, two 10-year sentences on the second degree theft convictions, and a 10-year sentence on the forgery conviction, all to be served in the state penitentiary.
The appellant raises four issues on appeal.
The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal of second degree theft of property in count one of case number CC-86-469.
The evidence tended to show that on March 21, 1986, the appellant opened a checking account at First National Bank of Tuscaloosa and deposited the requisite $100 in the account. From March 24 to April 3, no more money was deposited in the account; however, several checks were presented against the account and were returned for insufficient funds. On April 4, the appellant made a $500 deposit in the form of a check from his checking account at First State Bank of Tuscaloosa. On that same day, the bank paid two checks against the account of First National totaling $496.67. On April 9, the $500 check from First State was returned for insufficient funds. On April 28, 1986, the appellant went to First National and spoke with vice-president Herschel Owen and offered to pay his total indebtedness of $677.67. Owen accepted the $180 on the returned checks fees, but refused payment of the $496.67 overdraft. Two weeks later, on May 13, 1986, an agent of First National Bank signed a warrant against the appellant for theft of property in the second degree.
Section 13A-8-2, Code of Alabama 1975, provides that "a person commits the crime of theft of property if he knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his property." Section 13A-8-1(1), Code of Alabama 1975, defines "deception" as follows:
The appellant argues that, because he tried to pay his indebtedness to First National two weeks before a warrant was signed against him, there is not sufficient evidence that he tried to deprive the bank of its monies through deception. After a careful review of the total circumstances surrounding this case, we disagree. It is obvious that the appellant had a scheme by which he planned to deprive First National Bank and other banks and individuals of their monies by "kiting" checks. Thus, there was sufficient evidence presented by the State to allow the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of theft of property in the second degree. Saffold v. State, 494 So.2d 164 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).
Moreover, it is not the province of this court to reweigh the evidence. Walker v. State, 416 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). As a rule, this court will uphold the jury's verdict and the trial judge's decision unless that decision was palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence and manifestly wrong. Thus, the denial of the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal was correct in this case.
The appellant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal of theft by deception in the second degree as charged in count two of case number CC-86-469. The appellant argues that Harco Drugs sent the appellant a ten-day worthless check notice on April 28. However, Harco did not wait ten days before seeking a warrant for theft by deception in the second degree against the appellant. The appellant asserts that because Harco elected to proceed under the Worthless Check Act, it should be estopped from further actions pending the ten-day...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...attempted to repay does not change the fact that she deceived Mrs. Sanderson in order to deprive her of her money. See McElroy v. State, 571 So.2d 353 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). There was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the crime of theft by deception in the first degree h......
-
Brown v. State
... ... Petition for writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (3 Div. 964). Appeal from the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, No. CC-87-1464, ... ...