MARCUS LEON MCCANTS, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a conspiracy to commit robbery because no agreement between the appellant and another individual was proven.
[1] A conspiracy conviction requires proof of an agreement with the intent to commit a substantive offense.
[2] A conspiracy may not be inferred solely from conduct which merely aids and abets an offense.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. During a drug deal, the appellant took money from an undercover informant aft…
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 Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. He appeals only the conspiracy conviction. We find that there was insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy.
At trial it was indicated that the robbery victim was acting as an undercover informant attempting to purchase drugs when she met the appellant behind a bar. After the appellant expressed suspicion that the victim was working with the police, he asked the victim if she knew “what they did to white people.” Another individual had arrived by this time, and the appellant told the other individual to show the victim “what they do to white people.” The other individual lifted his shirt, and it appeared to the victim as if he were going to pull a gun from his pants. The appellant thereafter took the money which the victim had brought to purchase drugs.
A conspiracy requires proof of an agreement with the intent to commit a substantive offense. E.g., Ashenoff v. State, 391 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1980). Although such proof may sometimes encompass circumstantial evidence, a conspiracy may not be inferred solely from conduct which merely aids and abets an offense. Ashenoff; see also, Saylor v. State, 491 So. 2d 340 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); Ramirez. The appellant was not shown to have communicated or otherwise revealed an intention to rob the victim when he suggested that the other individual demonstrate “what they do to white people.” The other individual’s threatening response does not reflect an agreement to rob the victim. Absent proof of such an agreement, the evidence was insufficient to establish a conspiracy.
The appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery is reversed. Because this conviction affected the sentencing guidelines computation, the appellant’s sentences for both the conspiracy and the robbery are vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing.
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kanisky Evans v. State, 985 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…cient to prove conspiracy.” McClain v. State, 709 So. 2d 136, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citation omitted). See Mickenberg v. State, 640 So. 2d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Quinonez v. State, 634 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); McCants v. State, 587 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Garcia v. State, 548 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); LaPolla v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353, 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Ashenoff v. State, 391 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). “Mere presence at the scene is insufficient to esta…
-
Kasai McCLAIN v. State, 709 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…greement. State v. Adkins, 553 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lavette v. State, 442 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) rev. denied, 449 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1984). Conduct that aids and abets an offense is insufficient to prove conspiracy. McCants v. State, 587 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In this case, the State introduced insufficient evidence of a conspiracy between appellant and Griffin; thus, the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal as to count one. The State had considerable…
-
Racheal Gould v. State, 251 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…9, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that, while acts may present a prima facie case of aiding and abetting, they do not constitute conspiracy where there is no showing of both an agreement and an intent to commit offense). See also McCants v. State , 587 So. 2d 673, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("Although such proof [of conspiracy] may sometimes encompass circumstantial evidence, a conspiracy may not be inferred solely from conduct which merely aids and abets an offense."). Without proof that Gould participated in…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florentino Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Campos v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Serv., 391 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Saylor v. State, 491 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)