I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. As chief operating officer and chief assistant public defender of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, I supervised the felony divisions where dealing in stolen property was one of the most frequently filed second-degree felonies — often against people who had never stolen anything and had simply pawned something for a friend, a roommate, or a boyfriend. Our attorneys defend these cases throughout Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, and the first thing we look at is not the pawn ticket but the “should have known” element the State has to prove.

How Does Florida Law Define Dealing in Stolen Property?

Dealing in stolen property is trafficking, or trying to traffic, in property that the person knows or should know was stolen. Section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes, provides that “any person who traffics in, or endeavors to traffic in, property that he or she knows or should know was stolen shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree.” Subsection (2) creates an aggravated version: a person who “initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property and traffics in such stolen property” commits a first-degree felony.

Three parts of that definition catch people by surprise:

1. “Traffic” is broad. Section 812.012 defines trafficking to include selling, transferring, distributing, dispensing, or otherwise disposing of property — and buying, receiving, possessing, or obtaining control of property with intent to do any of those things. A single pawn is trafficking. So is listing an item on Facebook Marketplace.
2. “Endeavors to traffic” means the sale does not have to happen. Offering a stolen item for sale, or walking into a pawn shop with it, completes the offense even if the pawnbroker refuses the transaction.
3. “Should know” is not “did know.” The State does not have to prove actual knowledge. It has to prove that a reasonable person in your position would have known the property was stolen — and the statute gives prosecutors a set of inferences to help them do it.

What Are the Penalties for Dealing in Stolen Property in Florida?

Up to 15 years in prison for the ordinary offense and up to 30 for organizing the theft — with no dollar threshold and no misdemeanor tier:

The comparison rows are the point. A person who steals a $400 phone commits a first-degree misdemeanor. A person who pawns that phone for someone else commits a second-degree felony with fifteen years of exposure and a scoresheet that starts at 28 points. This is why dealing is so often the lead charge in Hillsborough County property cases: it carries more weight than the theft it grew out of, and it is easier to prove, because the pawn ticket does most of the work.

The one softer path is section 812.0195, Florida Statutes, which covers using the Internet to sell property the person “knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is stolen.” It is graded by value — a misdemeanor under $300, a third-degree felony at $300 or more — and its existence is a negotiating point in online-sale cases, since the State frequently charges the same Marketplace listing under the far harsher section 812.019.

What Does “Knew or Should Have Known” Mean, and How Does the State Prove It?

It means the State can convict on inferences, not just direct proof — and the inferences are written into the statute. Section 812.022, Florida Statutes, lists circumstances that, “unless satisfactorily explained,” permit a jury to infer that the person knew or should have known the property was stolen:

These inferences are permissive, not mandatory — the jury may draw them, and must be told it may not if the circumstance is “satisfactorily explained.” But the State has to earn each one with evidence before the judge may read it to the jury, and that requirement is where a Hillsborough County dealing conviction was recently reversed.

In Cintron v. State, No. 2D21-40 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 20, 2022), a Hillsborough County jury convicted a man of dealing in stolen property after he listed a set of tools on Facebook Marketplace and agreed to sell them for $800 in a Walmart parking lot — to the man they had been stolen from. Cintron testified that he had bought the tools from a stranger at a gas station for $195 and wanted to make “a quick buck.” The trial judge gave the jury the below-market-value inference and the dealer-in-property inference. The Second District reversed on both. The victim’s testimony that his recovered tools were “maybe” worth $3,000 or $3,500 was not evidence of fair market value, because it said nothing about the tools’ age, condition, or depreciation — and without fair market value there was no way to say $195 was “substantially below” it. And a person who buys property once and resells it is not “a dealer in property,” which the statute defines as a person “in the business of buying and selling property.” The court ordered a new trial. The lesson for every dealing case is that the inferences are not automatic; the State must prove the predicate facts, and a defense attorney who objects at the charge conference can keep them away from the jury.

Why Is the Pawn Shop Usually Where the Case Begins?

Because Florida law turns every pawn transaction into a police report. Under the Florida Pawnbroking Act, section 539.001, Florida Statutes, a pawnbroker must complete a transaction form for every pledge or purchase that records the seller’s government identification and its number, a detailed description of the item — brand, model, serial number, size, color, and “any other unique identifying marks, numbers, names, or letters” — the seller’s right thumbprint and signature, and the seller’s written representation that the property “is not stolen.” The pawnbroker must deliver those forms to law enforcement for “each of the transactions occurring during the previous business day,” and must hold the goods for at least 30 days.

In Hillsborough County those forms feed the databases detectives search by serial number, description, and seller. When a burglary victim reports a stolen laptop, the serial number is queried; when it appears on a pawn ticket, the person whose ID and thumbprint are on that ticket is the suspect — regardless of who actually broke into the house. That is how a person who pawned an item as a favor becomes the defendant in a second-degree felony while the actual thief is never identified.

Two features of this system matter for the defense. First, the pawn ticket proves possession and trafficking, but it does not prove knowledge; the “should have known” element still has to be established separately. Second, the transaction form is the seller’s sworn statement that the property was not stolen — which the State uses as evidence of knowledge, but which is also, when the seller truly believed it, evidence of good faith.

Can You Be Convicted of Both Theft and Dealing in Stolen Property?

Not for the same property in the same scheme. Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, allows the State to charge both theft and dealing “in connection with one scheme or course of conduct” in separate counts, but provides that “the trier of fact may return a guilty verdict on one or the other, but not both.” The Legislature’s theory, as Florida courts have explained, is that the two statutes target different people: the theft statute is aimed at the “common thief” who steals for personal use, and the dealing statute at the network of “thieves and fences” who redistribute stolen goods. A jury has to decide which one the defendant is.

The Florida Supreme Court has applied the rule in two cases that came up through the Second District, the appellate court for Tampa Bay. In Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2013), a Hillsborough County defendant stole video game systems and games from a home one evening and pawned some of them the next afternoon; convicted of both grand theft and dealing, he argued the jury should have been told it could convict of only one. The court agreed, holding that theft and dealing are “one scheme or course of conduct if they involve the same property and there is no meaningful disruption via an interval of time or set of circumstances,” that trial courts “have an obligation to instruct the jury on section 812.025” whenever both counts go to the jury, and that the failure to do so required a new trial on both counts. In Anucinski v. State, 148 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2014), a woman stole a $2,500 ring from a Tiffany store, rode her bicycle to a pawn shop, and pawned it for $400 the same day; she pleaded to both counts. The court held that the rule applies to pleas as well as verdicts — a judge cannot adjudicate a defendant guilty of both — and that on remand the trial court must decide whether she was a “common thief” or a “trafficker” and vacate the other conviction. “The linchpin of section 812.025,” the court wrote, “is the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property.”

For a defendant, the rule means three things. A plea offer that includes both a theft count and a dealing count for the same property is legally defective and should never be accepted as written. At trial, the jury must be instructed on the choice, and a lawyer who fails to request the instruction has given up a new trial. And the “common thief” framing is a genuine defense theory: a person who stole something for their own use and later sold it is guilty of the theft — a misdemeanor or third-degree felony — not the fifteen-year dealing charge.

How Do Our Attorneys Fight Dealing in Stolen Property Charges?

By attacking the only element that is usually in dispute — knowledge — and by holding the State to the procedural rules that most often produce reversals:

1. The “should have known” element. The pawn ticket proves you had the item and sold it. It does not prove you knew or should have known it was stolen. We build the account of how you came to have the property — who gave it to you, what you were told, what you paid, what you had reason to believe — and present the “satisfactory explanation” that defeats the statutory inferences.
2. The predicate for each inference. Under Cintron, the below-market-value inference requires competent evidence of fair market value at the time of the transaction, and the dealer inference requires proof that you were in the business of buying and selling. We object to every inference the State has not earned.
3. The section 812.025 election. Where the State charges theft and dealing for the same property, we insist on the instruction Williams requires and, in negotiations, on a disposition that recognizes the client as a common thief rather than a trafficker when the facts support it.
4. Identification and the thumbprint. Pawn tickets are sometimes completed under another person’s ID, and the thumbprint on the form is the State’s proof of identity. We examine the form, the store video, and the pawnbroker’s compliance with section 539.001.
5. Value and the Internet statute. In online-sale cases, the State’s choice to charge section 812.019 rather than section 812.0195 is a charging decision, not a legal necessity, and the existence of the graded Internet statute is leverage.
6. The disposition. Dealing is a second-degree felony, but it is a Level 5 offense. For a first-time defendant with a clean scoresheet, a withhold of adjudication, a reduction to petit theft, or pretrial diversion is often achievable — and because a felony conviction for dealing is what employers and landlords see, that outcome matters more here than in almost any other property case.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page. Our related articles on theft charges in Florida and proving value in Florida grand theft cases cover the underlying offenses.

What Should You Do If Police Contact You About Something You Pawned?

Do not explain the transaction to the detective, and do not go back to the pawn shop. A detective who calls about a pawn ticket already has your name, your identification number, your thumbprint, and the item’s serial number; what the detective does not have is proof that you knew the property was stolen, and the phone call is an attempt to get it. “My cousin asked me to pawn it for him” sounds like an innocent explanation and is, in the State’s hands, an admission that you trafficked property you did not own. Save every message about the item — who gave it to you, what they said, what you paid — because those messages are the “satisfactory explanation” the statute contemplates. Do not contact the person who gave you the item. And retain counsel before any statement, because in dealing cases the statement is frequently the only evidence of knowledge the State ever gets.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dealing in Stolen Property in Florida

Is dealing in stolen property a felony in Florida?

Yes. Ordinary dealing under section 812.019(1) is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, regardless of the property’s value; organizing the theft and trafficking in the goods under section 812.019(2) is a first-degree felony punishable by up to 30 years. The only misdemeanor version is selling property worth less than $300 over the Internet under section 812.0195.

Can I be charged if I didn’t know the item was stolen?

Yes, if the State can prove you “should have known.” Section 812.022 lets a jury infer knowledge from possession of recently stolen property, from a price substantially below fair market value, or from a dealer’s failure to follow ordinary business practices — unless the circumstance is “satisfactorily explained.” Your explanation of how you came to have the item is the defense, and The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. builds that explanation with evidence before the State hears it in an interrogation room.

Is pawning something for a friend a crime in Florida?

It is not a crime if the item was not stolen. If it was, pawning it for someone else is “trafficking” under section 812.019, and the question becomes whether you knew or should have known. Because your ID and thumbprint are on the pawn ticket and your friend’s are not, you — not your friend — are the person the detective calls. Do not answer that call without a lawyer.

Can I be convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property?

Not for the same property in one scheme or course of conduct. Section 812.025 and the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in Williams and Anucinski require the jury — or the judge accepting a plea — to choose one. A conviction for both is legally defective and can be corrected on appeal or by postconviction motion.

What is the difference between theft and dealing in stolen property?

Theft is taking property with intent to deprive the owner of it; its degree depends on value, starting as a misdemeanor. Dealing is trafficking in property you know or should know is stolen; it is a second-degree felony at any value. Florida treats the person who redistributes stolen goods as more dangerous than the person who steals them for personal use, which is why the “fence” charge is harsher than the theft charge.

Do pawn shops report to the police in Florida?

Yes, every transaction. Section 539.001 requires pawnbrokers to record the seller’s identification, a detailed description of the goods including serial numbers, and the seller’s thumbprint and signature, and to deliver those forms to law enforcement for every transaction from the previous business day. In Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties those records are searchable by detectives by serial number and by seller.

Can a dealing in stolen property charge be reduced or dismissed?

Yes, frequently. Common outcomes include dismissal when the State cannot prove the knowledge element, reduction to petit theft or grand theft under the section 812.025 “common thief” theory, reduction to the Internet-sale statute in online cases, and withholds of adjudication or diversion for first-time defendants. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. treats the felony label as the thing to be defeated, because it is the label — not the sentence — that follows a client for life.

If you or a family member has been contacted by a detective about a pawn ticket, or has been arrested for dealing in stolen property anywhere in Tampa Bay, the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — will handle the police contact and begin assembling the explanation the statute requires before the State builds its inference. Call (813) 727-7159. In these cases the detective’s first phone call is the State’s best chance at proving knowledge; make sure it is a lawyer who answers it.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.