State v. Burns, 2011 ME 92

Timothy Burns was convicted by jury of theft by unauthorized taking (Class C) for a check valued at $3,680.25 drawn on Sara Larson’s tax refund, which Burns allegedly caused to be cashed via a third party after delaying Larson’s receipt.
Larson filed an injured spouse claim; the IRS issued the refund to Burns’s parents’ Limestone address, and Burns picked up the check and arranged for its cashing.
Sharon Cannon cashed the check at Burns’s request; she gave Burns portions of the funds and later learned the check was bad.
Burns testified he did not know about the check until Larson called, but investigators indicated the check had been stolen.
The jury found Burns guilty of theft (Class C) and not guilty of forgery; he was sentenced to four years with eighteen months to serve and two years of probation, plus restitution.
On appeal, Burns challenges jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and the sentencing method.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury was properly instructed on the value element for Class C theft.	Burns; omission of the $1,000+ threshold.	Burns contends the instruction did not include the required value.	Harmless error; value ($3,680.25) supports Class C.
Whether the evidence sufficed to prove intent to deprive Larson of the check’s value beyond a reasonable doubt.	State argues Burns intended to deprive Larson of the value.	Burns argues lack of intent to permanently deprive.	Evidence supported intent to deprive under the statute.
Whether the basic sentence was properly determined and within statutory authority.	Court tied basic sentence to percentage of range based on amount stolen.	Sentence aligned with offense and aggravating factors.	Sentence affirmed; but percentage-based first-step calculation was improper; court properly set basic sentence considering offense characteristics.
Whether the court’s first-step sentencing methodology complied with governing standards.	Argument relies on misapplication of sentence steps.	Court considered nature and seriousness of offense.	Basic sentence upheld; first-step methodology required objective consideration of offense, not proportional to amount.

Bruzzese v. State, 2009 ME 61 (Me. 2009) (value as element; deems amount for theft)
Burdick v. State, 2001 ME 143 (Me. 2001) (harmless error when omitted element cannot be rationally contested)
Moon v. State, 2000 ME 142 (Me. 2000) (intent to deprive may be inferred from conduct beyond mere temporary holding)
Cook v. State, 2010 ME 85 (Me. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review; elements beyond reasonable doubt)
Stanislaw v. State, 2011 ME 67 (Me. 2011) (first-step sentencing; proper articulation of offense factors)
Hewey v. State, 622 A.2d 1151 (Me. 1993) (objective consideration of the offense for basic sentence)
Recuenco v. United States, 548 U.S. 212 (U.S. 2006) (harmless error analysis when elements omitted from jury submission)