STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PEDRO R. GONZALEZ, 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 appealed the trial court's dismissal of RICO and fraud charges against Gonzalez based on double jeopardy, arguing he had previously pled guilty to grand theft involving the same conduct. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Blockburger 'same elements' test, not the 'same conduct' test, applies to double jeopardy analysis, and the charges involve different elements and therefore do not violate double jeopardy.
The trial court erred in dismissing the charges. The Blockburger 'same elements' test, not the 'same conduct' test, applies to double jeopardy analysis. Under the Blockburger test, the RICO charge and the fraud charges each require an element of proof that the grand theft charge does not, so subsequent prosecution does not violate double jeopardy.
[1] Double jeopardy does not bar a subsequent prosecution if the offenses require proof of an element that the other does not, as determined by the "same elements" test.
[2] The "same conduct" test has been rejected in favor of the "same elements" test for determining double jeopardy.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The test to be applied to determine whether the subsequent prosecution is barred by double jeopardy is the 'same elements' test set forth in Blockburger v. United States”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for double jeopardy analysis in successive prosecutions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez was charged by information with one count of RICO and three counts of cashing or depositing an item with intent to defraud, based on deposits…
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 Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state challenges the trial court’s order dismissing the charges filed against the appellee, Pedro R. Gonzalez. We reverse.
Appellee was charged by information with one count of RICO in violation of section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes (1993), and three counts of cashing or depositing an item with intent to defraud in violation of section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1993). Appellee filed a motion to dismiss these charges on the basis of double jeopardy because he had pled guilty approximately one month earlier to a charge of grand theft which involved the same deposits and withdrawals in the prosecution of the new charges. The trial court granted the appellee’s motion and dismissed the charges. The state filed a timely notice of appeal.
The trial court erred in holding that the appellee’s prosecution on the RICO and cashing or depositing an item with intent to defraud charges was barred by double jeopardy because these charges arose from the exact conduct that had led to the charge of grand theft. The test to be applied to determine whether the subsequent prosecution is barred by double jeopardy is the “same elements” test set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). State v. Miranda, 644 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The “same conduct” test has been rejected by this court. State v. Miranda, 644 So. 2d at 344.
Applying the Blockburger same elements test to the instant case demonstrates that the subsequent prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy. The cashing or depositing an item with intent to defraud charges and the grand theft charge each require an element of proof that the other does not. See Henderson v. State, 572 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), approved 583 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.1991). The RICO charge and the grand theft charge also each require an element of proof that the other does not. See Cherry v. State, 592 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
We reverse the dismissal of the RICO and the cashing or depositing an item with intent to defraud charges and remand for further proceedings.
THREADGILL, C.J., and SCHOONOVER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- Cherry v. State, 592 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Twondy Gail Henderson v. State, 572 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- State v. Miranda, 644 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Twondy Gail Henderson v. State, 583 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1991)
- Mauricio Beltran-Lopez v. State, 583 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1991)