Suggs v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16072
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Suggs was convicted of four counts of written threats to kill or do bodily injury under §836.10 for two letters addressed to Karen Robertson and Hope Suggs; each letter allegedly contained threats to both recipients.
- Statute §836.10 criminalizes writing and sending a letter containing a threat to the recipient or that recipient's family; it punishes the act of sending the letter, not the content alone.
- The State charged four counts (first letter to Karen, first letter to Hope, second letter to Karen, second letter to Hope) though only two letters were sent.
- The issue was whether the unit of prosecution is the number of letters or the number of persons to whom letters are sent; the court analyzed the proper unit.
- The majority held the unit is the number of persons to whom the letters are sent, rejecting Grappin’s a/any approach and applying Bautista to interpret legislative intent.
- Dissent argued the unit should be the letter itself, and that four convictions violated double jeopardy; argued lenity should apply when ambiguity exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit of prosecution under §836.10 | State argues unit is per recipient (two letters to two people). | Suggs argues unit is per letter under Grappin a/any. | Unit is per recipient; four counts upheld. |
| Impact of Grappin a/any and Bautista on interpretation | State relies on Bautista to limit Grappin; no ambiguity. | Dissent emphasizes Grappin and lenity; argues ambiguity exists. | Bautista controls; statute interpreted to focus on recipient, not letter count. |
| Double jeopardy relevance of multiple counts | No double jeopardy violation under the majority approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grappin v. State, 450 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1984) (unit of prosecution ambiguous; allowed lenity where appropriate)
- Bautista v. State, 863 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2003) (a/any is a nonexclusive guide; context and legislative intent control)
- Wise v. State, 664 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (statutory elements focus on recipient; aid in unit determination)
- Mauldin v. State, 9 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (affirmed multiple convictions when multiple victims are placed in fear)
- Latos v. State, 39 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (double jeopardy review for unit-of-prosecution issue)