DeLuise v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16079
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Ralph DeLuise participated in a criminal enterprise defrauding clients seeking business funding, facilitating schemes and misrepresenting credentials.
- The State alleged victims included Learical Films, Galaxy Golf, Zeros, Inc., United Noetic, and ArcAngel/Red Cloak, with DeLuise steering clients and creating fraudulent documents.
- Williams rule evidence regarding four prior victims, including Debra Wenger, was admitted to show motive, plan, and lack of mistake, despite concerns about similarity.
- Jury convicted DeLuise of racketeering, conspiracy to racketeer, communications fraud, loan broker violation, two counts of grand theft, and money laundering; he was sentenced to prison terms and restitution totaling over $1.1 million.
- On appeal, the court vacated the grand theft conviction in Count 13 as a double jeopardy violation and remanded for re-sentencing due to equal protection issues raised by a restitution-based sentence reduction offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissions of Williams rule evidence | State contends evidence was relevant and probative. | DeLuise argues improper prejudice and similarity issues. | Admissible; probative and not unduly prejudicial. |
| Double jeopardy for grand theft in Count 13 | State maintains no duplication problem with counts. | DeLuise asserts grand theft is a lesser included offense of communications fraud. | Count 13 grand theft vacated as double jeopardy violation. |
| Sentencing equal protection issue | State argues restitution incentives are permissible. | DeLuise claims conditioning sentence on restitution creates unequal punishment for indigents. | Remanded for re-sentencing; trial court’s restitution-based sentence reduction violated equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stav v. State, 860 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for Williams rule admissibility)
- Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) (general limits on prior-bad-acts evidence)
- Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (test for admissibility balancing probative value and prejudice)
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2006) (grand theft as lesser included offense of organized fraud)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (equal protection limits on fining and imprisonment of indigents)
- Collins v. Michigan, 239 Mich.App. 125 (Mich.App. 1999) (equal protection violation where restitution-based sentence reduction shortens jail time)
- Tannihill v. State, 848 So.2d 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (double jeopardy may be raised on appeal as fundamental error)