Sanchez v. State
89 So. 3d 912
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sanchez was tried alone after co-defendants entered pleas; he faced racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering charges.
- The information originally alleged two predicate acts—possession of a concealed weapon and aiding an escape—to support racketeering, later amended to include robbery, murder, and aggravated assault.
- The jury, via special interrogatories, determined two predicate acts were proven: possession of a concealed weapon and aiding Garcia’s escape.
- The trial court had expressed reservations about the aiding-an-escape predicate; the jury instructions allowed election of predicate offenses.
- Evidence showed Sanchez lied to police about Garcia’s location; the State failed to prove Garcia was attempting an escape or that Sanchez knew of any arrest warrant.
- The court ultimately reversed both the racketeering and conspiracy convictions and discharged Sanchez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of the aiding-an-escape predicate act? | State contends evidence supported aiding escape. | Sanchez argues there was no proof Garcia attempted to escape and Sanchez knew of no arrest. | No; aiding an escape not proven; racketeering conviction reversed. |
| Can conspiracy to commit racketeering be proven by two predicate acts or by intent of others to commit two acts? | State relied on two predicate acts to prove conspiracy. | Sanchez argues predicate acts insufficient to prove either theory. | Conspiracy not proven under either method; convictions reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mese v. State, 824 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (remand for insufficient predicates in racketeering)
- Di Sangro v. State, 422 So.2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (insufficient predicate acts require reversal)
- State v. Adkins, 553 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (predicate-act-based analysis in racketeering)
- King v. State, 28 So. 206 (Fla. 1900) (knowing element in aiding escape historic interpretation)
- Dupree v. State, 416 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (custody entitlement in aiding escape analysis)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in racketeering)
- W.W. v. State, 993 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (obstruction considerations in citations to false information)
- D.G. v. State, 661 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (obstruction vs. false information as predicate)