Disgraced former AFL footballer Nick Stevens has failed to have his conviction set aside after losing his Supreme Court appeal this week.
The former Carlton and Port Adelaide midfielder was jailed in June, following a fraud scheme involving six families in Mildura, in north-west Victoria.
The victims lost a total of $170,000 after Stevens took payments in 2017 to install pools, despite not having a builder's registration, permits, or proper insurance.
He was jailed for nine months and will also serve a two-year community corrections order upon release.
A jury found him guilty of 12 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception and one count of using a false document.
He was acquitted of one other identical charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception.
That acquittal was the basis of his appeal in the Supreme Court this week.
Single acquittal reviewed
At the heart of Stevens's conviction was that he was not a registered builder when he accepted contracts to install pools, and had effectively misled clients about his credentials.
Between January 27, 2017 and February 14, 2017, Stevens worked with registered builder Bricol Building Products and lawfully installed six swimming pools.
He also entered into six other pool installation agreements not involving Bricol.
Stevens chose to give evidence at trial, arguing he intended to install the unlawful pools in accordance with the pre-existing arrangement with the company.
That was inconsistent with testimony from Bricol director Brian McDonnell and building surveyor Wayne Wilkie, who said Stevens did not provide them with documentation.
Defence lawyer Jim Stavris argued it was inconsistent that Stevens was both convicted and acquitted on identical charges.
He sought to appeal, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable, inconsistent, and unsupported by evidence.
Nick Stevens's appeal was unanimously thrown out. (AAP: Tracey Nearmy)
A unanimous verdict
The three appeal judges noted that the trial judge correctly directed the jury to consider each charge separately and to assess whether Stevens knew that his representation was false at each relevant date.
The only deception charge Stevens was acquitted of related to an initial deposit made by one of his victims, Julie Martin.
She made a deposit to him on January 15, 2017, before his legal installation of six pools with Bricol.
Ms Martin made her second and third deposits to Stevens on March 9 and March 15 that year, after those pools were installed.
The other charges, of which Stevens was found guilty, related to payments made by other customers to Stevens's business account on subsequent dates in 2017.
The appeal judges agreed that the timing of the first payment inferred that Stevens could plausibly have intended to engage Bricol in the pool installation.
They also accepted evidence that Stevens never forwarded Bricol any relevant documents for the unlawful pools, including Ms Martin's pool.
They ruled that it was up to the jury to be satisfied that, by the time Ms Martin's second payment was made, Stevens had chosen to complete the installation outside the Bricol arrangement.
The judges ruled that the jury had considered the charges individually, and that the timing of Stevens's initial interaction with Ms Martin explained his acquittal.
His appeal was unanimously thrown out.