Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Pamela Vandeursen Thime’s conviction for grand theft from a person 65 years or older but reversed portions of her sentence. The court held that three special probation conditions were invalid or overbroad and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a minimum monthly restitution payment while the direct appeal was pending.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the special probation conditions prohibiting Thime from signing on another person's financial account or directly accessing another person's funds were valid under the requirements governing special conditions of probation.
- Whether the special probation condition prohibiting Thime from doing business with anyone over age 65 was impermissibly overbroad.
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter a restitution order establishing a minimum monthly payment after Thime filed her notice of direct appeal.
Holdings
- The conditions prohibiting Thime from signing on another person's bank, credit-card, or financial account and from directly accessing another person's funds were invalid because the conduct was not the means by which she committed the theft, was not inherently criminal, and was not reasonably related to future criminality.
- The condition prohibiting Thime from doing business with anyone older than 65 was invalid because it was overbroad and could be violated unintentionally, such as through an online purchase.
- The trial court lacked jurisdiction to order a minimum monthly restitution payment after Thime filed her notice of direct appeal, even though the parties had agreed on the overall restitution amount during sentencing.
Key quotations
“A special condition of probation “is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.”” (2)
“AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.” (3)
Factual background
Thime was convicted of grand theft from a person 65 years or older after stealing more than $50,000 from the victim. The trial court imposed probation conditions barring her from signing on another person's bank, credit-card, or financial account; directly accessing another person's funds; and doing business with anyone older than 65. The trial court also entered a restitution order establishing a minimum monthly payment while Thime's direct appeal was pending.
Procedural history
The Circuit Court for Collier County entered judgment and sentence against Thime. Thime preserved her sentencing challenges through a motion to correct sentencing error, which the trial court denied. During the pendency of her direct appeal, the trial court entered a restitution order setting a minimum monthly payment. The Sixth District affirmed the conviction and most of the judgment and sentence, reversed the challenged sentencing provisions, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The trial court must strike the three challenged special probation conditions. On remand, the trial court may reissue the restitution order establishing the minimum monthly payment.