ARCHIE PARSLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court vacated defendant's RICO conviction because a single individual acting alone cannot constitute an "enterprise" under the RICO Act.
A defendant acting alone cannot be an enterprise for purposes of the RICO Act.
[1] A single individual acting alone cannot constitute an "enterprise" under Florida's RICO Act, section 895.01-.07, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArchie Parsley was convicted of racketeering based on underlying acts of grand theft, petit theft, and obtaining property through worthless checks, wi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rico Enterprise cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Archie Parsley appeals from his judgment and sentence for racketeering, based on the underlying acts of grand theft, petit theft, and obtaining property in return for worthless checks. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the racketeering charge on the ground that he acted alone and therefore could not constitute an “enterprise” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, section 895.01-.07, Florida Statutes (1987).
The first count of the information stated that the appellant was “employed by or associated with an enterprise” and unlawfully participated in such enterprise, “through a pattern of racketeering activi-ty_” Further, it stated that, “[t]he enterprise consisted of ARCHIE JUNIOR PARSLEY, an individual who engaged in various criminal activities.... ”
We find that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the RICO charge since, as the state concedes, the appellant acted alone in committing the underlying offenses. This court has held that a defendant acting alone cannot be an enterprise for purposes of the RICO Act. Day v. State, 541 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), review denied, 545 So. 2d 869 (Fla.1989); State v. Smith, 532 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1989).
Accordingly, we vacate the appellant’s conviction for racketeering, and reverse and remand for correction of the judgment and sentence.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 881 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…and sworn to or affirmed before some person legally authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. More succinctly, it has been defined as a statement in writing under an oath administered by a duly authorized person.”). . See State v. Johnston, 553 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and § 92.525(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). . We do not believe our holding is in conflict with Goines v. State, 691 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), in which the appellant sought review of an order revoking her community control. It is u…
-
Placide v. State, 189 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ting Black’s Law Dictionary, (4th ed.)). “An oath is an unequivocal act, before an officer authorized to administer oaths, by which the person" knowingly attests to the truth of a statement and assumes the obligations of an oath.” State v. Johnston, 553 So. 2d 730, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citations omitted); see also Youngker, 215 So. 2d at 321 (“An oath may be undertaken by any unequivocal act in the presence of an officer authorized to administer oaths by which the declarant knowingly attests the truth of a…
-
Crain v. State, 914 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…iting Black’s Law Dictionary, (4th ed.)). “An oath is an unequivocal act, before an officer authorized to administer oaths, by which the person knowingly attests to the truth of a statement and assumes the obligations of an oath.” State v. Johnston, 553 So. 2d 730, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citations omitted); see also Youngker, 215 So. 2d at 321 (“An oath may be undertaken by any unequivocal act in the presence of an officer authorized to administer oaths by which the declarant knowingly attests the truth of a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bester v. The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 532 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- D.R. v. State, 541 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- DAY v. State, 541 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)