FRANKLIN JOSE CORONA, 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.
Franklin Jose Corona appealed his jury conviction for multiple drug and robbery-related offenses. The court reversed his conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence but affirmed his convictions for drug possession, drug paraphernalia possession, and solicitation to commit robbery.
The court reversed Corona's conspiracy conviction because the state failed to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy. The evidence was insufficient to prove the agreement and intent necessary for the crime, as neither Thomas nor Lambert agreed to participate and there was no evidence of any agreement between Corona and Simpson.
[1] A conviction for conspiracy requires proof of an agreement, express or implied, between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense.
[2] Evidence of a defendant's presence with another individual and their arrival and departure together is insufficient to prove a conspiracy absent evidence of a shared crim…
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 is comprised of the mere express or implied agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal offense; both the agreement and an intention to commit an offense are essential elements.”
Establishes the legal standard for conspiracy requiring both agreement and intent to commit a crime
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorona, Charles Simpson, and an unknown female visited Roy Thomas's apartment. Corona discussed with Thomas and Gary Lambert a plan to rob a drug deal…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, C.J.
Franklin Jose Corona timely appeals after a jury convicted him of possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis, use or possession of drug paraphernalia, conspiracy to commit robbery with a deadly weapon, and solicitation to commit robbery with a deadly weapon. Of the several issues raised in this appeal, we reverse on one. We hold the evidence at trial was not sufficient to support Corona’s conviction for conspiracy and, therefore, reverse. We affirm his other convictions.
Roy Thomas testified that on the date in question, Corona, Charles Simpson, and an unknown female came to his apartment. Simpson and the female went into another room. Corona then discussed with Thomas and another man, Gary Lambert, a plan to rob a drug dealer named Charles. He even showed them a gun he said he planned to use. Thomas, however, testified he never agreed to commit a robbery and Lambert backed up his story.
Apparently, Corona and Simpson took off after this failed discussion. Police testified that when Corona was stopped later that night, a gun was found in Simpson’s front right pocket. Thomas and Lambert identified this gun as the one Corona showed them in Thomas’ apartment.
After the state rested, Corona moved for a judgment of acquittal. He argued there was no evidence he conspired to commit a robbery. The court denied his motion.
“The crime of conspiracy is comprised of the mere express or implied agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal offense; both the agreement and an intention to commit an offense are essential elements.” Jimenez v. State, 715 So. 2d 1038, 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citations omitted)(not cited); § 777.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). The jury may infer from the evidence that a common purpose to commit a crime existed and that the defendant was a part of the plan. LaPolla v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353, 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Here, the state did not prove a prima facie case of conspiracy. Thomas and Lambert both testified that Thomas never agreed to participate in the robbery, and there was no circumstantial evidence of such agreement. No one testified as to any conversations or agreements, express or implied, between Corona and Simpson. While Corona and Simpson arrived and left together, there was no evidence they approached Charles the drug dealer or were intending to commit the robbery at that time. There was no evidence that Simpson knew of Corona’s intentions. This evidence was, thus, insufficient to meet the circumstantial evidence standard of State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187(Fla.1989), and, as such, the trial court erred by denying Corona’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
As to the other issues raised in this appeal, we affirm as unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corona v. State, 906 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…y with a deadly weapon. The trial court calculated a scoresheet and sentenced appellant to consecutive 15-year terms on the conspiracy and solicitation charges. On appeal, this court reversed the conviction on the conspiracy charge. Corona v. State, 814 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court subsequently vacated the conspiracy charge, thus rendering the scoresheet incorrect. Appellant’s request for resen-tencing was denied. In the instant motion for post-conviction relief, appellant asserts that he i…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- LaPOLLA v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Jimenez v. State, 715 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)