CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2015 WL 5601467
...Before filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its proposals for comment. Two comments were received by the Committee. Both comments asserted that language in instructions 20.3-20.10 and instruction 20.12 stating that repayment of public assistance wrongfully obtained is not a defense under section 414.39(7), Florida Statutes (2014), may mislead jurors into believing that repayment is not relevant to any issue presented at trial, particularly the issue of whether the defendant acted with the requisite intent....
...The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final. It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur. *784 Appendix 20.3 WELFARE FRAUD — FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A MATERIAL FACT § 414.39(l)(a), Fla....
...ase or withdrawal by electronic benefit transfer. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.4 WELFARE FRAUD — AIDING OR ABETTING § 414.39(l)(c), Fla....
...r withdrawal by electronic benefit transfer. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.5 WELFARE FRAUD — CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES § 414.39(l)(b), Fla....
...Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. *788 20.6 WELFARE FRAUD — FOOD STAMPS, . MEDICAL-SER-¥I€EB[FOOD ASSISTANCE IDENTIFICATION CARD] [AUTHORIZATION] [CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES] [MEDICAID IDENTIFICATION CARD] § 414.39(2), Fla....
...l by electronic benefit transfer. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.7 WELFARE FRAUD-ADMINISTRATOR AIDINGMISAPPROPRIATING §§ 414.39(3)(a) and (3)(b), Fla....
...al by electronic benefit transfer. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.8 WELFARE FRAUD — ADMINISTRATOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE § 414.39(3)(a), Fla....
...awal by electronic benefit transfer. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.9 WELFARE FRAUD — RECEIVING UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENTS § 414.39(4)(c), Fla....
...thdrawal by electronic benefit transfer. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
20.10 WELFARE FRAUD — FILING WITHOUT CREDITING ' §
414.39(4)(eb), Fla....
...urchase or withdrawal by electronic benefit transfer. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
20.11 WELFARE FRAUD-BILLING IN EXCESS §
414.39(4)(a), Fla....
...*795 It is not a defense that the defendant repaid assistance or services obtained. Lesser Included Offenses No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015. 20.12 WELFARE FRAUD — FILING FOR SERVICES NOT RENDERED § 414.39(4)(a), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...d its proposals
for comment. Two comments were received by the Committee. Both comments
asserted that language in instructions 20.3-20.10 and instruction 20.12 stating that
repayment of public assistance wrongfully obtained is not a defense under section
414.39(7), Florida Statutes (2014), may mislead jurors into believing that
repayment is not relevant to any issue presented at trial, particularly the issue of
whether the defendant acted with the requisite intent....
...ahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
-4-
Appendix
20.3 WELFARE FRAUD — FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
A MATERIAL FACT
§ 414.39(1)(a), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Failure to Disclose a Material
Fact, the State must prove the following three two elements beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1....
...The fact was [used] [to be used] to determine (defendant’s)
qualifications to receive aid or benefits public assistance from any
state or federally funded public assistance program.
3. The aid or benefits came from a state or federally funded assistance
program.
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any 12
consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in any
12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...exchange value unlawfully obtained by the fraudulent act.
-5-
Definitions. Give as applicable.
“Fraudulent” means the intent or purpose of suppressing the truth or
perpetrating a deception.
§ 414.39(5)(f), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
— Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Defense. Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained.
Inferences. Give as applicable.
Optional (if appropriate) Proof § 414.39(8)(a), Fla....
...establish that the defendant received assistance, though this fact may be
disproved by competent evidence. You may conclude that (defendant) did
receive public assistance from the state if you find that there was a paid state
warrant made to the order of the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...for this offense.
Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
-7-
20.4 WELFARE FRAUD — AIDING OR ABETTING
§ 414.39(1)(c), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Aiding or Abetting, the State
must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Give 1a and/or 1b as applicable.
1....
...or benefits state or federally funded public assistance].
2. The other person received benefits to which [he] [she] was not
entitled.
3. The aid or benefits came from a state or federally funded
assistance program.
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
-8-
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...Stat.
The value of a food assistance authorization benefit is the cash or
exchange value unlawfully obtained by the fraudulent act.
Definitions. Give as applicable.
“Fraudulent” means the intent or purpose of suppressing the truth or
perpetrating a deception.
§ 414.39(5)(f), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
— Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Defense. Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained.
Inferences. Give as applicable.
Optional (if appropriate) Proof § 414.39(8)(a), Fla....
...e
disproved by competent evidence. You may conclude that (defendant) did
-9-
receive public assistance from the state if you find that there was a paid state
warrant made to the order of the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...his offense.
Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
- 10 -
20.5 WELFARE FRAUD — CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES
§ 414.39(1)(b), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Change in Circumstances, the
State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1....
...federally funded public assistance to which [he] [she] was not
entitled [or in an amount larger than [he] [she] was entitled].
2. The aid or benefits came from a state or federally funded
assistance program.
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any
12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Defense. Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained.
Inferences. Give as applicable.
Optional (if appropriate) Proof § 414.39(8)(a), Fla....
...establish that the defendant received assistance, though this fact may be
disproved by competent evidence. You may conclude that (defendant) did
receive public assistance from the state if you find that there was a paid state
warrant made to the order of the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...- 12 -
20.6 WELFARE FRAUD — FOOD STAMPS, MEDICAL SERVICES
[FOOD ASSISTANCE IDENTIFICATION CARD] [AUTHORIZATION]
[CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES]
[MEDICAID IDENTIFICATION CARD]
§ 414.39(2), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Food Stamps, Medical Services
[Food Assistance Identification Card] [Authorization] [Certificate of
Eligibility for Medical Services] [Medicaid Identification Card], the State
mu...
...fication card].
2. The use, transfer, acquisition, traffic, alteration, forgery, or
possession was not authorized by law.
The law requires (insert the appropriate law pertaining to the relevant
item).
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any
12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar –
Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Defense. Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained [or returned the authorization or identification wrongfully
obtained].
Inferences. Give as applicable.
Optional (if appropriate) Proof § 414.39(8)(a), Fla....
...- 14 -
disproved by competent evidence. You may conclude that (defendant) did
receive public assistance from the state if you find that there was a paid state
warrant made to the order of the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
- 15 -
20.7 WELFARE FRAUD — ADMINISTRATOR AIDING
MISAPPROPRIATING
§§ 414.39(3)(a) and (3)(b), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Administrator Aiding
Misappropriating, the State must prove the following [two] [three] elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
§ 414.39(3)(a), Fla....
...]stamps, a food stamp
identification card, [a certificate of eligibility for prescribed
medicine], [a Medicaid identification card], [or] [public
assistance from any other state or federally funded program].
§ 414.39(3)(b), Fla....
...misappropriate] [aided or abetted another in the
- 16 -
misappropriation of] [funds given in exchange for food
assistance program benefits] [any form of food assistance
benefits authorization].
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any
12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...Stat.
The value of a food assistance authorization benefit is the cash or
exchange value unlawfully obtained by the fraudulent act.
Definitions. Give as applicable.
“Fraudulently” means purposely or intentionally suppressing the truth
and/or perpetrating a deception.
§ 414.39(5)(f), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Defense. Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained [or returned the authorization or identification wrongfully
obtained].
Inferences. Give as applicable.
§ 414.39(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
You may conclude that (defendant) did receive public assistance from
the state if you find that there was a paid state warrant made to the order of
the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
- 18 -
20.8 WELFARE FRAUD — ADMINISTRATOR FAILURE
TO DISCLOSE
§ 414.39(3)(a), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Administrator Failure to
Disclose, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1....
...assistance, [a certificate of eligibility for prescribed medicine] [a
Medicaid identification card] [public assistance from any state or
federally funded program].
3. [He] [She] (Defendant) failed to disclose this fraudulent activity.
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
d. 100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
- 19 -
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...Stat.
The value of a food assistance authorization benefit is the cash or
exchange value unlawfully obtained by the fraudulent act.
Definitions. Give as applicable.
“Fraudulently” means purposely or intentionally suppressing the truth
and/or perpetrating a deception.
§ 414.39(5)(f), Fla....
...acilitate.
An “attempt” to commit a crime is the formation of an intent to commit
that crime and the doing of some act toward the commission of the crime
other than mere preparation to commit the crime.
Defense. Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained [or returned the authorization or identification wrongfully
obtained].
Inferences. Give as applicable.
§ 414.39(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
You may conclude that (defendant) did receive public assistance from
the state if you find that there was a paid state warrant made to the order of
the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
... Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
- 21 -
20.9 WELFARE FRAUD — RECEIVING
UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENTS
§ 414.39(4)(c), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Receiving Unauthorized
Payments, the State must prove the following element beyond a reasonable
doubt:
(Defendant) knowingly received, attempted to receive, or aided an...
...abetted in the receipt of unauthorized payments for services to a recipient of
benefits or other unauthorized public assistance or authorization or
identification to obtain public assistance under a any state or federally funded
assistance program.
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any
12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
— Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained [or returned the authorization or identification wrongfully
obtained].
Inferences. Give as applicable.
§ 414.39(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
You may conclude that (defendant) did receive public assistance from
the state if you find that there was a paid state warrant made to the order of
the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...s offense.
Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
- 23 -
20.10 WELFARE FRAUD — FILING WITHOUT CREDITING
§
414.39(4)(cb), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Filing Without Crediting, the
State must prove the following element beyond a reasonable doubt:
(Defendant) knowingly filed a claim for services to a recipient of benefits
under a state or federally funded assistance program without crediting the
state or its agents for payments received from social security, insurance, or
other sources.
§
414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any
12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
— Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
- 24 -
Repayment not a defense. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained.
Inferences. Give as applicable.
§ 414.39(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
You may conclude that (defendant) did receive public assistance from
the state if you find that there was a paid state warrant made to the order of
the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...offense.
Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
- 25 -
20.11 WELFARE FRAUD — BILLING IN EXCESS
§
414.39(4)(a), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Billing in Excess, the State
must prove the following element beyond a reasonable doubt:
(Defendant) knowingly billed the recipient of benefits under a state or
federally funded assistance program, or [his] [her] family, for an amount in
excess of that provided for by law or regulation.
§
414.39(5), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
— Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla....
... Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015.
- 27 -
20.12 WELFARE FRAUD — FILING FOR
SERVICES NOT RENDERED
§ 414.39(4)(a), Fla._Stat.
To prove the crime of Welfare Fraud — Filing for Services not
Rendered, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1....
...abetted in filing a claim for services to a recipient of benefits
under a state or federally funded assistance program.
2. The claim was for services which were false, not rendered, or for
unauthorized items or services.
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any
12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar
— Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained.
Inferences. Give as applicable.
§ 414.39(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
You may conclude that (defendant) did receive public assistance from
the state if you find that there was a paid state warrant made to the order of
the defendant.
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
... Sell] an EBT1 Card).2 No comments were received by the Committee. The Court
did not publish the proposals after they were filed. The more significant
amendments to the instructions are discussed below.
One amendment to instruction 20.6 is based upon section 414.39(2), Florida
Statutes (2016), as amended by chapter 2016-185, section 1, Laws of Florida.
There, the Legislature added the definition of “traffic” in new subsection (2)(b),
which is included in the amended instruction....
...structions 19.1-19.7 are now
the subject of In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2016-10,
No. SC16-1884 (Fla. petition filed Oct. 18, 2016).
-2-
elements of the offense of fraud under section 414.39(2)(a), it is included in a
portion of the definition of “traffic.”
Newly adopted instruction 20.6(a) also derives from another amendment to
section 414.39(2) by the 2016 Legislature, which added a new subdivision (c)
defining a distinct offense of fraud....
...of two or more EBT cards issued to others, and the definitions for “EBT card,”
“possess,” and “attempt.” In addition, as originally proposed by the Committee,
see supra, note 2, the Court includes in the instruction the recidivism enhancement
provision from section 414.39(2)(c), as well as the paragraph in the Comments
section that instructs judges that the jury should not be advised of any charge of
prior convictions until after the defendant was convicted of the original charge, and
in that case, a...
...-5-
APPENDIX
20.6 WELFARE FRAUD — [FOOD ASSISTANCE IDENTIFICATION
CARD] [AUTHORIZATION] [CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
MEDICAL SERVICES] [MEDICAID IDENTIFICATION CARD]
§ 414.39(2), Fla....
...card].
2. The use, transfer, acquisition, traffic, alteration, forgery, or
possession was not authorized by law.
The law requires (insert the appropriate law pertaining to the relevant
item).
§ 414.39(5), Fla....
...an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in
any 12 consecutive months.
c. an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than
$100,000 in any 12 consecutive months.
d. $100,000 or more in any 12 consecutive months.
§ 414.39(5)(e), Fla. Stat.
The value of a food assistance authorization benefit is the cash or
exchange value unlawfully obtained by the fraudulent act.
Definitions. Give as applicable.
“Aid or abet” means help, assist, or facilitate.
§ 414.39(2)(b)
“Traffic” means trade, sell, or exchange.
1....
...Optional Definition
“Knowingly” means an act done voluntarily and intentionally and not
because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason. (Devitt & Blackmar –
Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Sec. 16.07)
Give if applicable. § 414.39(7), Fla. Stat.
It is not a defense that the defendant repaid the assistance or services
obtained [or returned the authorization or identification wrongfully
obtained].
Inferences. Give as applicable.
§ 414.39(8)(a), Fla. Stat.
You may conclude that (defendant) did receive public assistance from
the state if you find that there was a paid state warrant made to the order of
the defendant.
-8-
§ 414.39(8)(b), Fla....
...Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2015 [
175 So. 3d 782]
and 2017.
20.6(a) WELFARE FRAUD — [SELLING] [ATTEMPTING TO SELL] AN
EBT CARD
§
414.39(2)(c), Fla....
...that crime and the doing of some act toward the commission of the crime
other than mere preparation to commit the crime.
Enhancement. Give if applicable if the jury finds the defendant guilty of
Welfare Fraud — [Selling] [Attempting to Sell] an EBT card. § 414.39(2)(c), Fla.
Stat.
Now that you have found the defendant guilty of Welfare Fraud —
[Selling] [Attempting to Sell] an EBT card, you must further determine
whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
was...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...id John McPherrin,
Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
GERBER, J.
The state appeals from the circuit court’s order granting the defendant’s
motion to dismiss one count of public assistance fraud charged under
sections 414.39(1)(a) and (5)(b), Florida Statutes (2015). The state argues
the circuit court misinterpreted section 414.39(5)(b) as requiring the state
to allege and prove the defendant committed fraud in each of twelve
consecutive months....
...s.
We agree with the state’s argument. Thus, we reverse the circuit court’s
order and remand for reinstatement of the state’s public assistance fraud
charge against the defendant.
Procedural History
Sections 414.39(1)(a) and (5)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), provide, in
pertinent part:
(1) Any person who knowingly:
(a) Fails, by false statement, misrepresentation,
impersonation, or other fraudulent means, to disclose a...
...ntification
wrongfully received, retained, misappropriated, sought, or used
is of an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000
in any 12 consecutive months, such person commits a felony
of the third degree . . .
§ 414.39(1)(a), (5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphases added).
Pursuant to the sections 414.39(1)(a) and (5)(b), the state’s information
in this case alleged, in pertinent part:
[The defendant], on or about the 3rd day of April, A.D....
...value of public assistance, wrongfully received, retained,
misappropriated, sought or used was of an aggregate value of
two hundred dollars ($200.00) or more in a twelve (12)
2
consecutive month period, contrary to F.S. 414.39(1)(a) and
F.S. 414.39(5)(b), [Florida Statutes (2015)] . . . .
(emphases added).
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge. The motion alleged
the information was fatally flawed because it did not allege a crime under
414.39(5)(b). Specifically, the defendant argued “[section] 414.39(5)(b)
requires a consecutive period of 12 months or longer which is not
alleged in the information.” (emphasis in original).
The circuit court agreed with the defendant’s interpretation of section
414.39(5)(b) and entered an order granting the motion to dismiss....
...The Information
alleges 10 months and 26 days. . . . Therefore, the Information
is defective and the charge cannot stand.
(emphasis added).
This Appeal
This appeal followed. The state argues the circuit court misinterpreted
section 414.39(5)(b) as requiring the state to allege and prove twelve
consecutive months of fraud....
...meaning only requires the state to allege and prove the public assistance,
wrongfully received, retained, misappropriated, sought or used was of an
aggregate value of $200 or more in a twelve consecutive month period.
The defendant responds the circuit court properly interpreted section
414.39(5)(b). In the alternative, the defendant argues if section
414.39(5)(b) is ambiguous due to the statute’s differing interpretations,
then the rule of lenity requires us to interpret the statute in the defendant’s
favor, consistent with the circuit court’s interpretation.
Applying de novo review, we agree with the state’s argument....
...If the statutory language is clear and
unambiguous, the court must recognize the statute’s plain meaning and,
therefore, need not employ any other rules of statutory construction.”
State v. Lewars,
259 So. 3d 793, 797 (Fla. 2018) (internal citations
omitted).
Here, section
414.39(5)(b)’s use of the clause “in any 12 consecutive
months,” when read in the entire section’s context, plainly refers to the
defined time period during which the wrongfully received public assistance
must aggregate to “two hundred dollars ($200.00) or more, but less than
$20,000.”
In other words, section
414.39(5)(b) provides the guideposts in both
dollars and time for which the state must prove a person has wrongfully
received, retained, misappropriated, sought, or used public assistance,
that is, “an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than $20,000 in any
12 consecutive months.”
2. The rules of statutory construction dictate the same conclusion.
Even if we were to agree with the defendant that section
414.39(5)(b) is
ambiguous (which it is not), the rules of statutory construction dictate the
same conclusion, thus precluding the defendant’s reliance on the rule of
lenity....
...prepositional phrases, restrictive clauses) should be read as modifying the
nearest noun, verb, or other sentence element to which they can
reasonably be said to pertain.” Scherer v. Volusia Cty. Dep’t of Corrections,
171 So. 3d 135, 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
As stated above, section
414.39(5)(b) states, in pertinent part:
If the value of the public assistance or identification
wrongfully received, retained, misappropriated, sought, or
used is of an aggregate value of $200 or more, but less than...
...s, the misappropriated value of
$200 or more but less than $20,000 must aggregate in “any” twelve
consecutive months. The misappropriated value does not need to
aggregate in “each of” twelve consecutive months.
Further, interpreting section 414.39(5)(b) as requiring the value of $200
or more but less than $20,000 to aggregate in “each of” twelve consecutive
months, as the defendant argues and as the circuit court found, would
lead to absurd consequences....
