Arizona Theft Lawyer

GET SKILLED LEGAL HELP NOW FOR YOUR DEFENSE

If you were charged with theft in Arizona, or are awaiting charges, it is important to get legal help immediately. The beginning stages of a criminal case are critical for a person's defense. Scottsdale theft lawyer, Dave Smith, has over 14 years' experience defending the accused in Arizona and has the skills to get the best possible outcome and he's ready to help you today. Contact Us.

WHAT IS THEFT IN ARIZONA?

The Arizona legislature drafted theft laws to protect a person's property. Theft, or larceny, is the act of stealing another person's property with the specific intent to deprive the other person of their property.

Example: A person goes into a convenience store and stuffs several items into their pockets and leaves the store without paying for the items. This act constitutes theft. 

Example: A woman is walking down the sidewalk and sees a man's wallet fall out of his back pocket just in front of her. She picks it up and keeps it instead of returning it to the owner. Keeping lost property of another constitutes theft if a reasonable opportunity to return it is possible.

Every case has its own unique facts and circumstances, so it is important to discuss your case with an experienced Arizona theft lawyer today. 

THEFT ARIZONA LAW  

A.R.S. 13-1802 contains the Arizona legal definition of theft. In the most common circumstances, a person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:

1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property.

Theft charges range in severity from misdemeanor charges all the way to serious class 2 felony charges, depending on the value of the property or services stolen. Contact Scottsdale theft lawyer, Dave Smith, to go over the facts of your case and start building your defense. 

The Arizona criminal code classifies offenses as misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the severity of the crime. There are 3 classifications of misdemeanors with a class 1 misdemeanor being the most serious. Felonies are broken into 6 classes with a class 1 felony being the most severe to a class 6 felony being the least serious of felony offenses.  

A felony conviction is more serious than a misdemeanor conviction and carries harsh consequences such as longer periods of incarceration, heavy fines, a permanent felony record, the potential for loss of a person's job, loss of civil rights, public and housing benefits, immigration problems, and may cause child custody issues. 

Theft of property or services valued at:

• $25,000 or more is a class 2 felony with a presumptive sentence of 5 years;
• $4,000 or more but less than $25,000 is a class 3 felony with a presumptive sentence of 3.5 years;
• $3,000 but less than $4,000 is a class 4 felony with a presumptive sentence of 2.5 years;
• Any vehicle engine or transmission is a class 4 felony;
• $2,000 or more but less than $3,000 is a class 5 felony with a presumptive sentence of 1.5 years; 
• $1,000 or more but less than $2,000 is a class 6 felony with a presumptive sentence of 1 year;
• Theft of a firearm is a class 6 felony;
• Less than $1,000 is a class 1 misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 6 mos.

The answer depends on the person's criminal history and the facts of the case. Generally, for a first-time felony offender, probation is available at the discretion of the court. A person with a prior felony conviction is generally not eligible for probation. 

Scottsdale theft lawyer, Dave Smith, has defended thousands of clients in Arizona, is well-versed in the procedures of the local judicial system, and is skilled at achieving favorable sentencing.  

There are several potential defenses to theft charges. Every case is different with its own unique facts and circumstances, so it is important to contact a criminal defense attorney skilled in theft law to review your case.

Attorney Dave Smith knows what it takes to destroy the state's case and get results. A winning strategy involves:

• Extensive defense investigations in the form of witness and police interviews,
• Review of discovery materials, 
• Lodging legal challenges where issues exist to preclude the state's evidence or argue constitutional violations,
• Finding the weaknesses in the case, 
• Negotiate with the state to get the best possible results such as full dismissal or reduced charges,
• Potentially trial, if you decide to go to trial. Dave Smith is a highly skilled criminal trial attorney with a reputation in the legal community for being an aggressive advocate of the accused.    

DEFENDANT LACKED THE INTENT REQUIRED FOR THEFT

Whether the accused acted with the intent to deprive or the taking occurred simply as a temporary manner without the intent to keep the property is a potential defense. Contact Arizona theft lawyer, Dave Smith to discuss the details of your case.

"Deprive" is generally defined as withholding the property of another permanently or for such a long time that the value or usefulness of the property is substantially lost. "Deprive" also means to withhold with the intent to return it only in exchange of compensation or to dispose of property so that it is unlikely to be recovered by its owner (such as by destroying the property on purpose).  

Example: Becky is jogging down the sidewalk in a crowded urban area and finds a $100 bill crumpled up and poking out from under a bush. She did not see how it got there, reaches down and stuffs it into her pocket and jogs off.    

This scenario is open to interpretation whether Becky had a reasonable opportunity to return the property to its owner. Here, Becky found lost property and did not see the owner and had no knowledge of who the owner was in a crowded area. She lacks the intent to deprive since she does not know who the owner is and has no reasonable means to return the money found. 

Example: Bob the friendly neighbor comes over to borrow a weed whacker again. He can't find the homeowner to ask consent, but the shed door is open, exposing the weed whacker. Bob is eager to get the job done and just grabs it and goes about his landscaping. The homeowner eventually realizes his weed whacker is missing and reports it to the police. Two days later, Bob comes over and returns the weed whacker. 

Here, most would agree that Bob had no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the weed whacker because he was merely borrowing it. The fact that he returned the property helps support this argument as well as the fact that he borrowed it in the past.