State Brings Additional Charges in Hopes Felony Theft Case

MANATEE — Defense counsel for former Manatee County Administrator Scott Hopes has entered a motion to dismiss multiple new counts brought against Hopes in the ongoing criminal litigation, State of Florida vs Scott Hopes.

Hopes was hired as Manatee County's interim county administrator in 2021 and was named as the permanent administrator later the same year.

The former school board member served in the role until February 2023, when he submitted his resignation after losing the confidence of commissioners following several scandals.

As part of his resignation, the former administrator and the county government entered into a separation agreement that provided Hopes with four months' severance pay, accrued sick and vacation pay, and continued health insurance for a year.

In February 2024, Hopes was arrested and charged with three felony counts for crimes he was alleged to have committed while serving as a public official: notary fraud, grand theft, and fraudulent use of public records.

He was released on bond and, through counsel, entered a plea of “not guilty” on all counts.

According to the affidavit filed by the state following his arrest, Hopes is alleged to have stolen county funds by claiming overtime hours for which he was not eligible. To obtain the funds, Hopes allegedly padded his time cards, committing fraudulent use of public records, to claim the earnings.

As for the notary fraud, Hopes was accused of devising and mandating a process for county forms requiring notaries that “intentionally and systematically” subverted state laws governing the Notary Public, said the affidavit.

However, last week, the state entered a Nolle Prosequi on the notary-related charge, declining to prosecute the former administrator on that specific charge.

According to the case filings, a hearing was held on April 15 to hear a motion entered by the defense for "particulars."

Hopes’ attorney filed the motion seeking the court to order the state to provide specifics of the charges.

When the charges were filed, the state provided an “on or about, or between” date range of the alleged theft, including a statutory range of amount stolen of “more than ten thousand dollars, but less than twenty thousand dollars.”

The defense attorney’s motion argued that the broad nature of the information impeded the defendant’s ability to prepare an adequate defense. 

As for the original third-degree felony charges of grand theft and fraudulent use of public records, the state provided that the alleged crimes occurred between April 2021 and December 2022. 

Defense’s motion for particulars included, “The information fails to identify the specific acts and specific dates that the defendant must defend. The date range is too broad and does not appear to be related to any particular event… the absence of particulars results in a lack of notice, prejudice, unfair surprise, and the inability to prepare an adequate defense.”

While the third-degree felony charge of notary fraud included a specific date of the alleged crime, “on or about October 27, 2022,” defense counsel’s motion argued that information it obtained through depositions provided “conflicting statements” as to the two documents the state alleged Hopes had fraudulently notarized.

In closing, the attorney requested the court order the state to provide a “statement of particulars,” or, as an alternative motion, dismiss the charges altogether due to vagueness.

Following the hearing, the court issued an order siding with the defense and ordered the state to provide “specifics as to the exact amount of money alleged to have been stolen,” as well as specifics as to the dates of the charged offense. 

In addition, the judge’s order instructed the state to provide the defense with the specific date(s) and documents related to the charge of notary fraud, or to “Nolle Pros” that charge entirely.

On April 16, the State of Florida, represented by State Attorney Ed Brosky, entered a Nolle Prosequi as to the felony charge of notary fraud—abandoning any future prosecution on that count.

On April 17, through a second amended information, the state provided the specifics as to the amounts and dates of the alleged theft and public records crimes. In a legal context, the filing of “amended information” refers to a revision of the complaint filed against the defendant.

The amended information resulted in the state filing additional felony counts of grand theft and fraudulent use of public records, as well as an additional charge of petty theft, a first-degree misdemeanor.

Based on the information provided in the filing, the original charges brought against Hopes included multiple separate alleged incidents over nearly two years, during which the state believed the former administrator had fraudulently claimed additional work hours on his time card and received pay above and beyond that allowed under his contract.

As a contracted employee, the county administrator is hired by commissioners through a majority vote. As administrator, Hopes’ contract provided him with a set salary and benefits.

Hopes’ contract also outlined that he could receive an increase to his contracted salary in instances where all county employees received a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) as approved by the commissioners through the adoption of the annual budget. Any salary increases or additional payments to the administrator beyond a COLA required a separate board vote to approve.

In addition, the original affidavit filed in the case noted that extra overtime compensation payments are a privilege explicitly extended “to only exempt employees below the rank of director.”

With the amended information entered by the State last week, it provided more specific details regarding the alleged dates and amounts, separating them into separate offenses, which resulted in additional charges.

As of the April 17 amended information filing, the state is now charging Hopes with seven counts: 

Count 1 - grand theft greater than $5,000 but less than $10,000 (third degree felony), alleged to have occurred within the pay period of September 24, 2022, to October 7, 2022.

Count 2 - grand theft greater than $750 but less than $5,000 (third degree felony), alleged to have occurred within the pay period of November 5, 2022, to November 18, 2022.

Count 3 - grand theft greater than $750 but less than $5,000 (third degree felony), alleged to have occurred within the pay period of April 1, 2021, to April 9, 2021.

Count 4 - petit theft greater than $100 but less than $750 (first degree misdemeanor), alleged to have occurred within the pay period of May 21, 2022, to June 3, 2022.

Count 5 - fraudulent use of public records (third degree felony), for allegedly falsifying a time card on or about October 7, 2022, to facilitate the crime of felony theft.

Count 6 - fraudulent use of public records (third degree felony), for allegedly falsifying a time card on or about November 18, 2022, to facilitate the crime of felony theft.

Count 7 - fraudulent use of public records (third degree felony), for allegedly falsifying a time card on or about April 9, 2021, to facilitate the crime of felony theft.

Immediately following the State having submitted its amended information and additional charges, Hopes’ attorney filed a motion to dismiss counts 3, 4, and 7, arguing the charges are barred from being brought due to the statute of limitations.

According to the defense's motion to dismiss, a prosecution for a third-degree felony must be commenced within three years of the crime having been committed, and a first-degree misdemeanor prosecution must be commenced within two years.

Because the state’s amended information resulted in additional charges of grand theft alleged to have occurred between April 1 and April 29, 2021, petty theft alleged to have occurred between May 21 and June 3, 2022, and fraudulent use of a public records alleged to have occurred on April 9, 2021, defense has requested the court find the "new" charges time-barred from prosecution. 

The case remains ongoing, and a hearing is yet to be scheduled concerning the defense’s motion to dismiss certain charges. Should the court find in support of the motion, Hopes would still face two charges of felony grand theft and two additional felony counts for fraudulent use of public records, in connection with falsifying time cards to commit the alleged thefts. 

Hopes' attorney, Lisa Chittaro, declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing litigation.  A representative for the State Attorney's Office also declined to comment, stating that their attorneys are ethically prohibited from doing so while a case remains in active litigation. 

Dawn Kitterman is a staff reporter and investigative journalist for The Bradenton Times covering local government news. She can be reached at dawn.kitterman@thebradentontimes.com.