قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Convicted criminal successfully requires smaller tests

Convicted criminal successfully requires smaller tests



Lorrie Lashann Ray appealed against a conviction for insurance fraud and property acquisition with false pretenses arguing for less time on probation. In State of North Carolina v. Lorrie Lashann Ray, No. COA20-132, Court of Appeals Of North Carolina (November 3, 2020) after judges granted her trial because of the kindness of his heart, wife. Ray appealed the verdict.

Procedural History

Ray was tried on charges of insurance fraud and acquisition of property with false pretenses. The jury found Ray guilty of insurance fraud and acquisition of property with false pretenses. The trial court consolidated the verdicts for the verdict and sentenced Ray to 10 to 21 months in prison, suspended in a 24-month supervised trial. As a condition of trial, the trial court ordered Ray to serve a 60-day term.

Actual Background

Ray's home in Dunn, North Carolina, was damaged in the fall of 2016 by Hurricane Matthew. Ray filed a claim with his home insurance company, Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (the "insurer"). Ray claimed that her roof, windows, doors, porch and electronics were damaged. there were leaks throughout the home due to the roof damage; she lived in her barn; and she lost all food in her refrigerator due to destruction.

Ray contacted the insurer by telephone on 6 December, disputing the amount allocated to her claim and requesting that the insurer carry out a new home inspection. The next day, Ray handed over to the insurer a food loss inventory totaling $ 1,350. On December 21, Ray provided estimates for $ 6,240 roof repairs, $ 1,520 window repairs, and $ 427 door repairs. Ray also filed (1) a handwritten lease agreement signed by Ray and her stepfather, Robert McEachin, that Ray would pay $ 100 a day to McEachin to stay in his home; and (2) handwritten documents alleged to be 76 paid daily receipts as of October 11, 2016 for $ 100 each, signed by McEachin and stating that Ray lived in his home. Twice in January 2017, Ray contacted the insurer and demanded compensation for living expenses of $ 8,300. Ray faxed the handwritten lease and receipts totaling $ 8,300, declaring that she paid cash to McEachin and giving the insurer McEachin's phone number.

Ray called McEachin and told him that the insurer would call him to ask him some questions, and that "everything [he] was to just say yes." An insurer's representative visited McEachin's home; showed him receipts that Ray had submitted; asked him if he had signed them, to which he replied "no"; and had him write his name on a piece of paper. McEachin told the insurance representative that he did not have a lease with Ray and that Ray had not lived with him between October 2016 and January 2017. McEachin testified at the trial that he did not write or sign the alleged receipts and that Ray did not stay in his house.

Discussion

Ray claims that the trial court erred in convicting her of both having acquired property through false pretenses and insurance fraud for the same alleged misrepresentation. Ray also argues that the trial court erred in delegating its authority to Ray's probation officer by failing to specify an end date for the active period of Ray's split sentence.

Judgment based on both convictions

Where the legislature clearly expresses its intention to prescribe and punish exactly the same conduct under two separate statutes, a court of law in a single trial may carry out cumulative penalties under the statutes.

The elements of insurance fraud are:

  1. Ray presents a statement for a claim under an insurance
  2. this statement contained false or misleading information.
  3. Ray knows that the statement is false or misleading; and
  4. Ray acted with intent to deceive.

The elements for obtaining property through false pretenses are:

  1. A false representation of a past or existing fact or a future fulfillment or event,
  2. calculated and intended to deceive,
  3. actually deceiving, and [19659015] through which Ray obtains or attempts to obtain something of value from another person.

Based on the separate and distinct elements that must be proved, the legislature clearly expressed its intention to prescribe and punish a misrepresentation that is intended to deceive under both statutes.

With regard to the object of the two crimes, it is clear that Ray's conduct is contrary to two separate crimes. and distinct social norms. If it is generally likely to harm an individual victim to acquire property with false pretenses, a wider class of victims of insurance fraud will be harmed. Fraud committed against insurers by submitting false claims increases the insurers' cost of doing business – beyond the financial loss of having paid an insured a limited amount on a fraudulent claim – as it requires insurers to investigate fraudulent claims and establish ongoing processes for to avoid future fraudulent allegations.

If the verdict and punishment for both crimes in a single trial were not intended by the legislature, it could have raised the issue. It did not.

Active Term of Sentence

Ray argued that the trial court wrongly delegated its authority to Ray's probation officer by failing to specify an end date for the active period of Ray's sentencing.

Under North Carolinaâ & # x20AC; & # x2122 ;s criminal law statutes, a court of law may sentence a defendant on special trial as a form of interim sentence, in certain circumstances. The court can then interrupt the period of imprisonment and put Ray to the test and also demand that Ray be sentenced to a period or imprisonment at any time or interval within the framework of the probationary period, consecutively or in succession, the court determines. The sum of all periods of childbirth imposed as an incident with special consideration, but which does not include an activated suspension, may not exceed a quarter of the maximum prison sentence imposed for the crime, and no imprisonment beyond an activated suspended sentence may be required for more than two years. judgment.

The Charter itself sets the outer limit, or end date, for an active term as a condition of special probationary period as the end of the probationary period or two years after the conviction comes first. In this case, the trial court sentenced Ray to 10 to 21 months in prison and suspended that sentence in a 24-month supervised trial. As a condition of trial, the trial court ordered Ray to serve a 60-day term.

The trial court appropriately determined the "intervals within the probationary period" as two thirty-day periods and the end date is set. according to the charter on 27 August 2021 – which in this case is both the end of the two-year probationary period and two years from the date of the conviction.

Therefore, the court did not err in imposing a judgment based on convictions for both obtaining property through false pretenses and insurance fraud based on the same misrepresentation, and the trial court did not err in failing to specify an end date for the active period of Rays. judgment as a condition of special examination.

Ms. Ray, who could have been sentenced to five years in prison for each conviction, refrained from serving two 30-day prison terms plus probation. Grateful for a kind and simple verdict for two major crimes that she added to her crime by filing a useless appeal. The judge and the appellate court should have withdrawn the sentence and sentenced her to serve a full 10 to 21 months in prison because I have no mercy in me for those who commit insurance fraud. , Esq., CFE, now limits its practice to serving as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, fraud and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance industry. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.

Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.

For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims staff.

https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ Last read two issues of ZIFL here.

Go to Barry Zalma videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921 [195659007] Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile / Zalma / posts [19659007] Listen to Podcast: Zalma on Insurance https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episodes Zalma on Insurance

Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel / UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg /

Go to insurance claims library -https: //zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/

https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v= 001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkV7pkuOtkiv6oakpgK33CNlNAYW-WBlLCOZFtgvpSdcL7R-tsWKfMVqG6fEuvmM7Hh7gUEJ7yKOdgHDbGl_cGAU% 3D [1965] [1965] [19659090] [1965]
Source link