Opinion ID: 2274446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Other Multiplicity Claims Lack Merit

Text: Ms. Harris's other claims of multiplicity fail. Counts 4 and 5 were not multiplicitous as they were based on two independent incidents of fraud, namely Ms. Harris's submissions of false documents to DHS on two separate occasions. As we noted above, these facts are squarely controlled by our decision in Abdulshakur that a person who makes multiple attempts to fraudulently obtain benefits may be convicted on multiple counts. Supra, 589 A.2d at 1258. Ms. Harris was also properly charged with the continued unlawful use of food stamps pursuant to D.C.Code § 4-218.05(a). [8] It is irrelevant that the charged offense occurred within the same time period as Counts 1, 4, and 5 because unlawful use of food stamps is a separate and different offense from welfare fraud. According to the elements-based rule of statutory construction [we use] in determining whether offenses merge, [i]f each offense contains at least one element which the other does not, there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend that the offenses merge. Malloy v. United States, 797 A.2d 687, 691 (D.C.2002). [9] Here, § 4-218.01(a) requires the element of a false statement or failure to disclose information which § 4-218.05(a) does not, and § 4-218.05(a) requires the use of either food stamp coupons or access devices which § 4-218.01(a) does not. The presumption of separate offenses established by the different elements can only be overcome by a clear indication of contrary legislative intent, id. (quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 367-68, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983)), which Ms. Harris does not present. Thus, we find no error.