Miami-Dade Criminal Defense Attorney
Available by phone 24 hours a day! (305) 542-9491
Miami-Dade Criminal Defense Lawyer Attorney Profile Criminal Defense Blog Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us
Areas of Practice
Criminal Defense
Burglary
Domestic Violence
Drug Crimes/Drug Trafficking
DUI
Expunging Criminal Records
Hit & Run
Identity Theft
Juvenile Crimes
Misdemeanors
Murder/Manslaughter
Probation Violations
Restraining Orders
Sex Crimes
Theft Crimes
Traffic Offenses
Violent Crimes/Firearm Crimes
Warrants
White Collar Crimes
Contact Us
Avvo
6625 Miami Lakes Drive Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
Click here to be instantly connected  to our office. Click here to find out what you should do next. Read about the benefits of hiring  a former prosecutor.

Former Broward Contractor Sentenced To 10 Years In Prison For Grand Theft

Just this past Friday, a man convicted back in November for grand theft was sentenced to 10 years in state prison.

The accused was charged with creating contracts with clients, accepting payment, and then never beginning any work.

The accused, the chief executive officer of a now-defunct Oakland Park home-remodeling company, was found guilty of a dozen grand theft charges and two counts of extortion after a November trial.

The former head of HomeCo Unlimited was arrested in November 2004, six months after a Sun Sentinel investigation examined complaints by many of his clients who said the company took their money, performed demolition work at their homes, but then stopped work.

Broward Circuit Judge Jeffrey Levenson also ruled that the accused will be on house arrest with a GPS monitor for two years after he is released from prison and will be on probation for three years. The accused must pay about $37,000 in restitution to his victims.

Since this was a case involving a contractor, the issue at trial was whether the accused intended to steal from the alleged victims. Grand theft requires a showing of intent.

The defense claimed that the work was never performed because the company had run out of money and couldn't pay it's suppliers. The jury believed that the accused's conduct was so egregious, that it was intentional.