2D09-3801 / Vroom v. State

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Second District Court of Appeal » 2010 » 2D09-3801 / Vroom v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D09-3801

Case Date: 10/20/2010

Plaintiff: 2D09-3801 / Vroom

Defendant: State

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ERNEST HENRY VROOM, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 2D09-3801

Opinion filed October 20, 2010. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge. Joseph A. Eustace, Jr., and Anthony J. LaSpada of Anthony J. LaSpada, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Judge. Ernest Henry Vroom challenges his convictions and sentences for three counts of unlawful collection of an advance fee and one count of grand theft. We affirm the convictions on the charges for the unlawful collection of an advance fee without

discussion. But we reverse the conviction and sentence on the grand theft charge because the evidence was insufficient to prove that offense. Vroom was the principal in a business known as Funding American Mortgage Corporation (FAMC). FAMC was licensed by the State of Florida as a mortgage lender pursuant to the requirements of chapter 494 of the Florida Statutes. Vroom's role as an agent for FAMC was to negotiate loan agreements with potential borrowers and then "sell" the transactions to the ultimate lenders. In each of the three transactions that are the subject of this prosecution, Vroom collected an advance fee as a part of the negotiations with the borrowers. Vroom, however, failed to close any of the three transactions. In two of the transactions, Vroom was able to return the advance fee to the borrower, but he failed to do so in the transaction with Mr. Thomas Coghill, Sr. This failure was the basis of Vroom's grand theft conviction. At jury trial, after the close of the State's case, Vroom moved for judgment of acquittal as to the grand theft charge, arguing that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that he had the requisite intent to commit the offense. The facts basically showed that Coghill paid to FAMC the required advance fee and that Vroom then transferred it to an attorney's trust account in London. Upon the failure of Vroom to close the loan, he and FAMC failed to return the deposit as agreed to by a commitment letter. There was no evidence that any of the funds remained with or were returned to Vroom or FAMC by the London attorneys or any other third party. Further, there was no evidence that Vroom had any relationship with the London attorneys or other parties that eventually received the money. As such, Vroom argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of

-2-

acquittal because the State failed to prove that he had the requisite intent to commit grand theft. See

Download 2D09-3801.pdf