5D05-2413 Stafford v.Don Reed Ford

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2006 » 5D05-2413 Stafford v.Don Reed Ford

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D05-2413

Case Date: 02/13/2006

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2006

JAMES THOMAS STAFFORD, Appellant, v. DON REID FORD, INC., ET AL., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 17, 2006 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Thomas Mihok, Judge. Charles M. Greene of Greene & Lee, P.L., Orlando, for Appellant. Arthur J. Ranson, III, and Stacy L. Wilde of Shuffield, Lowman & Wilson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. Case No. 5D05-2413

TORPY, J. Appellant challenges the summary judgment entered against him for civil theft. The sole issue on appeal is whether a restitution judgment entered in favor of Appellee in the criminal proceeding arising from the same theft precluded Appellant from defending this civil action under statutory estoppel provisions. Appellant was estopped from defending the civil proceeding, we affirm. Concluding that

In the criminal proceeding, Appellant and co-defendant, Southern, were charged with committing a "Scheme to Defraud of $50,000 or more." 1 Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty and agreed to the entry of a restitution order in favor of Appellee in the amount of $225,000. At the plea and sentencing hearing, without objection from Appellant, the prosecutor proffered the following factual basis to support the criminal conviction: Your Honor, had this case proceeded to trial, the State was prepared to prove that on or about the 1st day of June, 1999, through and up until the 7th day of September of 2001, the defendant in this case was engaged in selling products to Don Reid Ford under the direction of a Mr. Southern. Mr. Southern, who was in charge of the Get-Ready Department, was in charge of the inventory of that particular department in Don Reid Ford. The defendant in this case would send the invoices to Don Reid Ford, and those invoices would be for merchandise that had never been received by Don Reid Ford. Mr. Southern would receive cash payments in the amount of about $3,000 at a time, from the defendant in this case, in order to sign off on those faulty invoices. That's per -- over those courses of years, and it resulted in a loss to Don Reid Ford of well -- alleging around $300,000 at this time, for purposes of our plea, to which the loss attributed to Mr. Stafford was $225,000 and as to Mr. Southern, it was $75,000. In addition to this, Your Honor, over the course of those same years, the defendant in this case, along with the co-defendant, covered up their transgressions by stacking the inventory of Don Reid Ford with parts from Mr. Stafford's own warehouse, as well as that from Al Morganelli's warehouse, in order to fill Don Reid's inventory so that it would look appropriate to the inventory and that -- the monies that they had paid out. A surprise audit revealed the discrepancy at Don Reid Ford. That a ll occurred here in Orange County, Florida. The court found that there was a factual basis to accept Appellant's guilty plea, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to ten years of supervised probation. The
1

Download 5D05-2413 Stafford v.Don Reed Ford.pdf