Tinker v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4D19-3232 |
| Citation | 341 So.3d 1136 |
| Parties | Darren Joseph TINKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Siobhan Helene Shea, Special Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Conner, C.J. Darren Joseph Tinker ("Defendant") appeals his judgments and sentences after a jury found him guilty of multiple counts related to an alleged scheme involving Defendant and his parents. Defendant raises seven issues on appeal. However, because one issue is dispositive and requires reversal, the remainder of the issues are moot. We hold that the evidence was insufficient to allow the charges to proceed to determination by a jury. The trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Background
Defendant, his mother, and his father were charged with multiple counts related to an alleged scheme whereby companies created by Defendant's father obtained properties via fraudulent deeds.1 Defendant was a vice president of Global Management Consulting Group Corp. ("Global Management") for at least some period during which the scheme was alleged to have spanned. Defendant's father was president of Global Management and Defendant's mother was also vice president of the company. Defendant's father and mother were also listed as corporate officers of a related corporation, Global Homebuyers LLC ("Global Home Buyers") (collectively, "the Global companies"). The three co-defendants lived in one of the properties obtained in the scheme.
The case proceeded to a jury trial with all three co-defendants represented by the same attorney. Defendant was charged with multiple counts of grand theft of residential properties, criminal use of personal identification information of both living and deceased persons, and filing false documents or records against real property. The State acknowledged that some of the business conducted by the Global companies was legitimate. However, it alleged that the Global companies, through Defendant and his parents, also perpetrated fraud. During the trial, copies of deeds which were signed by Defendant either as a representative of Global Management or as a witness were introduced into evidence to show Defendant's participation in the criminal scheme. A power of attorney used in the scheme which bore Defendant's signature as a witness was also introduced into evidence, as well as an eviction notice signed by Defendant as a representative of Global Management for one of the properties which it fraudulently obtained and then rented. Additionally, a security visitor log was introduced into evidence from the Broward County Governmental Center with Defendant's name listed on seven dates, which the State contended proved multiple instances of Defendant recording fraudulent documents as part of the scheme.
Defendant did not contest that the various documents the State entered at trial were fraudulent. Instead, Defendant's theory of defense was that he had no knowledge of the fraudulent activity and that the fraud had been perpetrated by a rogue employee of Global Management, along with the help of several other individuals.
Defendant was twenty-four years old at the time of trial. His father testified that Defendant started working for the family business in high school, ran errands, and cleaned the office. Additionally, he performed limited customer service by answering customer questions. Defendant testified he was fired multiple times by his father because he had a terrible work ethic. His father made him a vice president of Global Management to keep the appearance of a family business, but he had no duties as vice president. The State presented no evidence to conflict with the testimony of Defendant and his parents about his limited role in the family business.
After its initial presentation of evidence, the State rested, and Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. He argued that his name came up in the investigation only because he worked for the family company; his name on the visitor log at the recording office did not show guilt; the State did not prove the purported signatures on documents were his; he was only fourteen years old when the alleged fraudulent scheme began; and there was no evidence that he knew of a fraudulent scheme or that information in the documents filed for recording was fraudulent. The motion was renewed at the conclusion of all evidence, incorporating the same arguments. The trial court denied both motions.
The jury found Defendant guilty of twelve counts of unlawful filing of a false document; twenty-seven counts of criminal use of personal identification information; thirteen counts of criminal use of a deceased person's personal identification information; and fifteen counts of grand theft, for a total of sixty-seven convictions. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for downward departure for sentencing and sentenced Defendant to twenty years in prison, followed by twenty years of probation. Defendant gave notice of appeal.
Appellate Analysis
"We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo." Demus v. State , 281 So. 3d 505, 507-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). "The question presented by such a motion is whether, in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the charge." Bright v. State , 191 So. 3d 497, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). In other words, "an appellate court must ‘view[ ] the evidence in the light most favorable to the State’ and, maintaining this perspective, ask whether ‘a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Bush v. State , 295 So. 3d 179, 200 (Fla. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Rogers v. State , 285 So. 3d 872, 891 (Fla. 2019) ).
The State also alleged that Defendant acted as a principal. "In order to be guilty as a principal for a crime physically committed by another, one must intend that the crime be committed and do some act to assist the other person in actually committing the crime." Staten v. State , 519 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1988).
"In resisting a judgment of acquittal, the state can rely on any evidence adduced, even evidence later determined to have been erroneously admitted." Pryear v. State , 243 So. 3d 479, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (quoting State v. Brockman , 827 So. 2d 299, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ). "A defendant is not entitled to a judgment of acquittal ‘merely because evidence that is critical to the court's finding of sufficiency was improperly admitted.’ " Id. (quoting Barton v. State , 704 So. 2d 569, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ).
On appeal, Defendant does not frame his arguments around specific counts. Instead, he frames his arguments around various categories of evidence, contending that the State was unable to prove that he had the requisite knowledge of the "scheme" to support guilt on the counts against him.
In response, the State argues on appeal, as it did below, that five categories of evidence support Defendant's guilt: (1) he was a corporate officer of Global Management; (2) he physically recorded some of the fraudulent instruments; (3) he "sign[ed] and/or witness[ed] various fraudulent documents"; (4) he lived with his parents, co-defendants in the scheme, in one of the homes that was obtained by Global Management via fraudulent documents; and (5) he signed an eviction notice for one of the tenants living in one of the properties obtained by fraud. Notably, during closing argument, the State admitted that Defendant was guilty to "a lesser degree" than his parents.
As to the substantive crimes charged, we address the categories of evidence relied upon by the State.
Criminal Use of Personal Identification Information and a Deceased Person's Personal Identification Information
"[T]he elements of fraudulent use of personal identification information are: (1) willfully and fraudulently using or possessing 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 also § 817.568(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 20.13.
Although no case in Florida has addressed or interpreted section 817.568(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2018), the offense of criminal use of a deceased individual's personal identification information, the wording of subsection (8)(c) is virtually the same as subsection (2)(c), thus the elements are the same, except that the crime of criminal use of a deceased person's identification information requires that the victim is deceased, rather than a living individual. Compare § 817.568(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018), with § 817.568(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018).
The first element is the only one at issue. As to this crime," ‘[w]illfully’ means intentionally, knowingly , and purposely." Fla. Std. Jury Instrs. (Crim.) 20.13, 20.17 (emphasis added). " ‘Fraudulently’ means purposely or intentionally suppressing the truth or perpetrating a deception or both." Id.
The State's strongest evidence against Defendant as to the first element was that he signed2 certain deeds and a power of attorney. However, for two reasons, Defendant's signature on the documents is insufficient evidence that Defendant had knowledge of any fraudulent scheme.
First, Defendant's signature does not appear on any documents as a notary. Therefore, his signature was not certifying that he had satisfactory evidence that the person signing the document was in fact the person whom he or she purported to be. See § 117.05(5), Fla. Stat. (2018) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial