Defense Lawyers – Theft and Other Property Offenses
Types of Theft Charges
Our criminal defense attorneys defend people against all levels of theft charges. Some of the most common include:
- retail theft /shoplifting offenses
- bad checks
- possession of any stolen property
- possession of a stolen motor vehicle
- forgery and deceptive practices
- auto theft
- criminal damage to property
- credit card fraud
Theft, forgery, or other property offenses can be charged as misdemeanors or under some circumstances as felonies. If convicted of any criminal offense, you will carry that conviction on your record forever. It is important to contact a skilled and experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately if you are accused of theft or any other property offense.
Why You Need an Experienced Theft Defense Attorney
Under Illinois law, even seemingly minor theft charges can be charged as felonies if the value of the items exceeds a certain threshold. Charges can also be increased if the accused already has a criminal record. If convicted on even minor theft charges, you may still face serious consequences. The conviction may limit your ability to obtain certain jobs, and if you are not a U.S. citizen, there can be immigration consequences. It is important that you obtain legal advice if you are charged with theft or other property offense. Contact the Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC, who has experience in theft and other property offenses, today.
Illinois Retail Theft Defense Attorney
Retail Theft Defense Representation in Aurora, Naperville, Elgin, Wheaton, Oswego and much of Northern Illinois
A criminal conviction for retail theft can cause serious problems in the future that you may not even be aware of in the present moment. If you are accused of shoplifting merchandise valued at $300 or less, you will most likely be charged with a misdemeanor and if convicted, the penalties could include 12 months in jail, with fines up to $2500. If a salesperson accuses you of stealing more than $300, you could be facing Class 4 felony charges, with 1-3 years in jail and $25,000 in fines. Don’t let this happen to you. Contact an experienced retail theft defense attorney today.
The Law Offices of David G. Stevens, LLC located in Aurora, Joliet and Naperville, represents clients who have been charged with retail theft and other criminal offenses, throughout northern Illinois.
We understand the potential damages a retail theft charge can do to your professional career and personal life. That is why we work hard to protect your rights, from the onset of the accusation, through police investigation, and on to criminal defense litigation.
Defense Experience You Can Count On
As a former prosecutor, criminal defense attorney David Stevens understands what it takes to win a case. He has achieved successful results for clients facing retail theft charges in Kane County, DuPage County, Kendall County and Will County, Illinois.
You can feel confident in knowing that The Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC will offer you smart, informative, and personalized defense representation.
Schedule a Free Initial Consultation Today
Contact The Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC if you or someone you know has been charged with a criminal offense involving retail theft or shoplifting. We can help you fight the charges.
Call us in our Aurora or Naperville office locations at (630) 486-1080
Recent Case Law and News:
U.S. v. Jones,Nos. 11-3864 &12-1695 Cons. (January 9, 2014) E.D. Wisc. Affirmed
In prosecution on armed bank robbery charge, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting testimony from police detective that described characteristics of red dye pack used by bank to detonate on or near bank robbers after they left bank, since said testimony constituted expert witness testimony, and govt. had failed to disclose said testimony prior to trial as required under Rule 702. However, defendant failed to object to said testimony, and under plain error analysis, said testimony did not require new trial where: (1) defendant knew general nature of detective’s testimony prior to trial; and (2) detective’s testimony ultimately was not damaging to defendant’s case.
U.S. v. Spears, No. 11-1683 (September 6, 2013) N.D. Ind., Hammond Div. Affirmed and reversed in part and remanded
Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support defendant’s guilty verdict on two charges of identity theft, under 18 USC section 1028(A), arising out of defendant’s sale of fake credential to third-party, who unsuccessfully attempted to use said certificate to purchase handgun, where instant credential contained name and birth-date of third-party. Section 1028(A) prohibits anyone from knowingly transferring, possessing or using without authority, means of identification “of another person,” who Ct. construed as person who did not consent to use of his or her identification. As such, defendant could not be guilty of any infraction under section 1028(A), where third-party had consented to use of her identification information on fake credential.
Burglary 2d Dist.
People v. Roberts,, 2013 IL App (2d) 110524 (January 14, 2013) McHenry Co. (SPENCE) Judgment modified; remanded.
A vacant house is not a “dwelling” within the meaning of the residential burglary statute, where the owners had placed the property for sale but had secured no purchaser and had moved out of the state with no plans to return to the house. As burglary is an included offense of residential burglary, Defendant’s conviction is reduced from residential burglary to burglary. (ZENOFF and JORGENSEN, concurring.)
Burglary 5th Dist.
People v. McDaniel, 2012 IL App (5th) 100575 (October 12, 2012) St. Clair Co. (GoLDENHERSH) Reversed.
Defendant was charged with burglary and retail theft. Defendant entered retail store with authority, and did not exceed the physical scope of his authority and left immediately after stealing fishing reels; thus, he was properly convicted of that theft. However, as Defendant did not “remain within” the store to commit a theft, his burglary conviction is reversed, as the “remaining within” language in the burglary statute should not be de facto amended, to be read so broadly that common shoplifting becomes burglary. (WELCH and WEXSTTEN, concurring.)