State v. Christian, 2012 ME 51

DiStefano hired Christian in June 2009 to manage three Lincoln properties, collect rent, advertise apartments, and turn over rent to DiStefano; Christian was not authorized to sign leases or keep rent money.
Christian collected rent and deposits from four tenants in 2009; he kept the money at home and did not remit it to DiStefano.
Christian was indicted in February 2010 on one Class C theft count and four Class D theft counts, with Counts 2–5 corresponding to specific tenants’ payments.
At a December 2010 bench trial, the court found Counts 2–5 proven beyond a reasonable doubt and reduced Count 3 to Class E; Counts 2 and 5 were still Class D.
Christian was sentenced to 30 days on all counts with restitution totaling $3,300; the judgment room reflected a clerical error regarding verdict form and required remand for correction.
On appeal the court vacated Counts 2 and 5 as Class D and remanded for a revised judgment and resentencing; it held Counts 2 and 5 should be Class E theft.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Counts 2 and 5 were correctly classified as Class D theft	State contends the court properly classified the payments as theft and that the amounts justify Class D under the statute.	Christian argues the amounts do not meet the Class D threshold, so Counts 2 and 5 should be Class E.	Counts 2 and 5 must be reclassified as Class E theft; judgment vacated and remanded for entry of consisent judgment and resentencing.

State v. Burns, 26 A.3d 817 (Me. 2011) (statutory element requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for theft value threshold)
State v. Milliken, 985 A.2d 1152 (Me. 2010) (review of factual findings for clear error)
State v. Metzger, 999 A.2d 947 (Me. 2010) (vacatur and remand for proper classification where value threshold applies)
State v. Broekelbank, 33 A.3d 925 (Me. 2011) (statutory interpretation and application of theft thresholds)