Mathes v. State
106 So. 3d 73
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mathes challenges his convictions for conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to deliver heroin on double jeopardy grounds.
- Trial evidence and charges show a single enterprise allegedly pursuing heroin trafficking and racketeering from April–July 2009.
- Counts two and four alleged conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to traffic in heroin (reduced to conspiracy to deliver heroin) with the same participants and duration.
- Court found a single comprehensive conspiracy with multiple objectives, including heroin delivery and racketeering, and the State conceded only one conspiracy existed.
- The court remands to strike the lesser conviction (conspiracy to deliver heroin) while affirming conspiracy to commit racketeering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual conspiracy convictions violate double jeopardy | Mathes: double jeopardy violated by two conspiracies | State: there are separate conspiracy charges | Yes; conviction for conspiracy to deliver heroin struck |
| Whether there was a single conspiracy | Mathes: one overarching conspiracy | State: facts permit separate conspiracies | Single conspiracy existed; but convictions still violate double jeopardy due to subsumed offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Negron Gil De Rubio v. State, 987 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (single conspiracy with multiple objectives violates double jeopardy)
- James v. State, 61 So.3d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (conspiracy to traffic subsumed into racketeering when same duration and participants)
- Rodriguez v. State, 36 So.3d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (single conspiracy where conspiracies had same participants and period)
- Durden v. State, 901 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (if there is one agreement, one conspiracy even with multiple crimes)