Court Opinion

ID: 9792571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:30:58.81102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:43.673984
License: Public Domain

FROEB, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
Defendant pled guilty to one count of forgery and one count of theft and was sentenced to consecutive terms of four years on each. I would affirm the conviction and sentence on the forgery count. I would vacate the conviction and sentence on the theft count on the ground that sentences on both constitute double punishment in violation of A.R.S. § 13-116.
The essential facts are simple. Defendant presented a forged check in the amount of $945.00 to the State Bank of Parker where it was deposited to his checking account. The bank gave defendant immediate credit against which he thereafter wrote eight cheeks to various persons. There is some question as to whether the bank paid all or only some of the checks. In my view, the theft charge must fail, whichever is the case, when the identical elements test is applied.
The crime of forgery was complete when defendant presented the forged check to the bank for deposit. Defendant was charged and convicted of forgery in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(3). A person commits forgery under this section when he:
1. with intent to defraud
2. offers or presents, whether accepted or not,
3. a forged instrument.
Defendant was charged and convicted of theft in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(3). A person commits theft under this section when he:
1. obtains property of another
2. by means of any material misrepresentation
*4183. with intent to deprive him of such property.
It should be noted that defendant was charged with theft of money from the State Bank of Parker, not the persons to whom the eight checks were written. Thus the charge, if it has any validity, must necessarily relate to those of the eight checks which the bank in fact paid.
In my view, when the elements of the forgery charge are eliminated under the identical elements test, there is no basis upon which the theft charge can stand. The theft charge must be supported by a finding that the money paid out by the bank for the checks was obtained by a “material misrepresentation.” The only “material misrepresentation” to the bank in the entire sequence ws the fraud upon which the forgery was based. When that is eliminated, as it must be under the identical elements test, there is no “material misrepresentation” left to sustain the theft charge.
That this should be so is not surprising in view of the fact that forgery under A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(3) approximates, if not duplicates, the offense of theft by misrepresentation under A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(3) whenever the fraudulent pretense is used to obtain property or services. See Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona, p. 279 (1978).
I find State v. Schwartz, 14 Ariz.App. 531, 484 P.2d 1060 (1970) is on point and supports my conclusion that the double punishment statute has been violated. Even though the decision predates State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1, 491 P.2d 834 (1967), it applies the identical elements test which must be applied here. On the other hand, State v. Duran, 118 Ariz. 239, 575 P.2d 1265 (1978), relied upon by the majority, is distinguishable on its facts.
In conclusion, I would affirm the conviction and sentence on the forgery count and vacate the conviction and sentence on the theft count.