VINCENT CARONE, 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.
Appellant Carone was charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana in Florida, though the marijuana was never in Florida and there was no intent to bring it there. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that Florida has jurisdiction to prosecute conspiracy to commit an offense that occurs partly within the state, even if the underlying substantive offense would occur outside the state, under Fla. Stat. § 910.005(1)(d).
Yes. Florida has jurisdiction to prosecute conspiracy to commit an offense under Fla. Stat. § 910.005(1)(d) when conduct within the state constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense in another jurisdiction that is illegal in both jurisdictions. The gravamen of conspiracy is the combination and agreement, not the location of the substantive offense.
[1] A person may be prosecuted in Florida for conspiracy to commit an offense in another jurisdiction if conduct within Florida constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit…
[2] The gravamen of the offense of conspiracy is the unlawful combination and agreement, not the commission of the substantive offense.
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“A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense that he commits, while either within or outside the state, by his own conduct or that of another for which he is legally accountable, if: (d) The conduct within the state constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit in another jurisdiction an offense under the laws of both this state and the other jurisdiction.”
The statutory basis for Florida's jurisdiction to prosecute conspiracy when the substantive offense would occur outside the state
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarone conspired with others to obtain a large quantity of marijuana from Colombia for importation into the United States. He gave a confidante $150,0…
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 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Chief Judge.
The appellant was charged with conspiracy to possess more than 100 pounds of marijuana. He filed several motions to dismiss which were denied. He then pled nolo contendere and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions.1
For purposes of the motions to dismiss, the appellant conspired with others in Florida to obtain a large quantity of marijuana from Colombia which would be brought to the United States. The appellant gave one of his confidantes $150,000 with which to make an initial payment in Colombia. The appellant made an additional payment for the marijuana to an undercover agent in Pinellas County. The marijuana was transported to Michigan where it was seized. The marijuana was never within the State of Florida, nor was there any evidence that the appellant intended to bring any of the marijuana into the State of Florida.
Appellant contends that since he could not be convicted in Florida of the crime of possession of marijuana, he could not be convicted in Florida of conspiracy to possess the marijuana. Appellant’s contention is laid to rest by the provisions of Section 910.005(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1977), which states:
910.005 State criminal jurisdiction.—
(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense that he commits, while either within or outside the state, by his own conduct or that of another for which he is legally accountable, if:
(d) The conduct within the state constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit in another jurisdiction an offense under the laws of both this state and the other jurisdiction.
The same result has been reached by other states without the benefit of a statute because the gravamen of the offense of conspiracy is deemed to be the combination and agreement. State v. Pooler, 141 Me. 274, 43 A. 2d 353 (1945); State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 164 S.E. 737 (1932). See W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law, Sec. 17, p. 121 (1972).
This is not a case in which one cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit a substantive offense because the substantive offense is not a crime. See State v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892, 180 So. 357 (1938). Possession of marijuana is a crime both in Florida and in Michigan.
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur. . Appellant was also charged with possession of more than 100 pounds of marijuana, but this charge was later dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 664 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…na into Kentucky was not a violation of the statute and therefore could not be prosecuted in Florida, even though the planning of the conspiracy commenced here. The state asks us to reject the reasoning in Bragg and rely instead on Carone v. State, 361 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In that case, the appellant was charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana. The marijuana was destined for Michigan and never was present in Florida, although the appellant made payment for the marijuana in Florida. The second…
-
Black v. State, 819 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ewhere); Domberg v. State, 518 So. 2d 1360, 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding conspirator whose participation was entirely outside Florida is subject to prosecution for “conspiracy which encompassed repeated acts within the state”); Carone v. State, 361 So. 2d 437, 437-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The state alleged substantive offenses, moreover, that have elements that were results or effects occurring in Florida. Under section 817.034(4)(a)l., Florida Statutes (1993), any “person who engages in a scheme to defra…
-
Gruen v. State, 451 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…[*526] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So. 2d 607, 609 (1947); Carone v. State, 361 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1978); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1974).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892 (Fla. 1938)