ISAAC HAYNES, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Isaac Haynes appeals his conviction for Trafficking in Cocaine and Conspiracy to Traffic in Cocaine, arguing insufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing consideration under the single subject rule.
The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy, finding competent and substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also determined that Haynes falls within the applicable window period to challenge his sentence on single subject rule grounds and remanded for resentencing consideration.
[1] A conviction for conspiracy requires proof of an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense and an intention to commit that offense.
[2] In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the State must present evidence sufficient for a jury to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt to overcome…
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 crime of conspiracy consists of an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense. To meet its burden, the State must prove an agreement and an intention to commit an offense.”
Establishes the elements required to prove conspiracy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Haynes handed his codefendant Miller a bag containing money, accompanied Miller to an undercover vehicle, entered the vehicle and received p…
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 Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
GARDINER, ANA I., Associate Judge.
Appellant, Isaac Haynes, appeals his conviction and sentence for Trafficking in Cocaine and Conspiracy to Traffic in Cocaine. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal in that there was insufficient evidence presented to support the conviction for the crime of Conspiracy to Traffic in Cocaine.
The crime of conspiracy consists of an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense. To meet its burden, the State must prove an agreement and an intention to commit an offense. See Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54, 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The State presented circumstantial evidence of Appellant’s agreement to traffic in cocaine including the following: Appellant handed his codefendant, Miller, a bag containing money, he accompanied Miller to the undercover vehicle; Appellant went into the undercover vehicle and while there received packages of cocaine, he tested and approved of the cocaine; he exited the undercover vehicle and walked away carrying two kilos of cocaine.
In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal in circumstantial evidence cases, the State must not only present competent evidence to prove the elements of the crime, but the evidence must be sufficient for the jury to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989); Bauer v. State, 609 So. 2d 608, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). A review of the record shows that there is competent and substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
As to the sentencing issue raised by the Appellant, the State concedes, and we agree, that Appellant falls within the applicable window period for challenging the 1995 sentencing guidelines on single subject rule grounds. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000).
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s conviction but remand to the trial court for consideration of whether resentencing is required pursuant to Heggs. See Speed v. State, 764 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Speed v. State, 764 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Donald v. Bauer, 609 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)