THOMAS MARTONE, 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 use of a new standard jury instruction on principals, even if improperly applied to pre-1995 conduct, constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Appellant was convicted of racketeering and related offenses. He filed a belated appeal after being granted relief on habeas corpus due to issues with…
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 Communications Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
SCOLA, JACQUELINE HOGAN, Associate Judge.
Appellant, Thomas Martone, appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, organized fraud, and communications fraud. His conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal without opinion. Martone v. State, 787 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Martone filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on appellate counsel’s having not been furnished the entire record during the pendency of his direct appeal. Martone v. State, 867 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). This court granted relief and, as a result, this belated appeal follows.
Martone now complains that the trial court erred by giving the new standard jury instruction on principals set forth in 1995 because the criminal conduct for which he was charged took place prior to 1995. Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (95-2), 665 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1995). Thus, he claims, this constituted an ex post facto violation. He relies on our statements of law earlier set out on this issue in Hooper v. State, 703 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and Carinda v. State, 734 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Although we question the continued viability of Hooper and Carinda, based on the holding of Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001), we do not reach that question. We have reviewed the evidence presented below and based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt in this case, we conclude that the use of the new principal instruction in this case was harmless error. Affirmed.
GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tanner Dashner, 356 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…that the defendant “does not claim to have changed his behavior based on the existence of the single homicide rule, nor does it appear that he has changed any legal positions to his detriment in reliance on the rule”). Moreover, in Martone v. State, 921 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), we “question[ed] the continued viability of Hooper and Carinda, based on” Rogers, 532 U.S. 451, but based on our above analysis, we need not reach that question here. Accordingly, we reverse the erroneous dismissal of the…
-
Tanner Dashner v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…that the defendant “does not claim to have changed his behavior based on the existence of the single homicide rule, nor does it appear that he has changed any legal positions to his detriment in reliance on the rule”). Moreover, in Martone v. State, 921 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), we “question[ed] the continued viability of Hooper and Carinda, based on” Rogers, 532 U.S. 451, but based on our above analysis, we need not reach that question here. Accordingly, we reverse the erroneous dismissal of the…
Authorities Cited
- STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIM. CASES (95-2), 665 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1995)
- Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (U.S. 2001)
- Hooper v. State, 703 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Thomas v. Martone, 867 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Carinda v. State, 734 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)