AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of possession of a stolen credit card and two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card less than $250 in any six-month period. The Defendant used the credit card twice in one day for purchases under $250 each time.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her conviction for two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card less than $250 in any six-month period violates double jeopardy. Contended that the Court's reliance on State v. Salazar was erroneous due to its interpretation of the statute prior to its 2006 amendment and its reliance on a different crime, fraudulent signing of credit cards. Asserted that the statute's language indicates the entire course of conduct as the unit of prosecution rather than each discrete act, thus one of the two convictions should be vacated.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card less than $250 in any six-month period violates double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding double jeopardy. It applied a de novo standard of review for the constitutional question of double jeopardy, noting that factual issues intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis are subject to a deferential substantial evidence standard of review. The Court analyzed the issue as a "unit of prosecution" double jeopardy question, determining whether the legislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act. The Court found that the language of the statute, as amended in 2006, supports the interpretation that each use of a credit card under $250 in any consecutive six-month period is a separate offense, aligning with the holding in Salazar that each use of another’s credit card is punishable as a separate offense. The Court concluded that the Defendant was appropriately charged and convicted of two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card based on her actions of using the credit card twice in one day for purchases under $250.