JOSE N. NEGRON GIL DE RUBIO, 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.
Jose Negron Gil de Rubio was convicted of money laundering, racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and conspiracy to commit drug trafficking arising from his involvement in a cocaine trafficking operation. The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed the conspiracy to commit racketeering conviction, finding it violated double jeopardy because it was based on a single conspiracy with multiple objectives rather than separate conspiracies.
The court reversed the conspiracy to commit racketeering conviction because it violated double jeopardy. A single conspiracy with multiple objectives constitutes one offense, not multiple conspiracies, even though the conspiracy aims at committing multiple different crimes. Therefore, conviction and punishment for multiple conspiracies based on the same underlying agreement is prohibited.
[1] A single conspiracy conviction is barred by double jeopardy if it arises from a single agreement to commit multiple offenses.
[2] The "same elements" test, typically used for double jeopardy analysis, is ill-suited for conspiracy cases.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 single conspiracy may have for its object the violation of two or more criminal laws or two or more substantive offenses. The conspiracy is one offense and a single offense, no matter how many violations of the law have been the object of the conspiracy.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that a single conspiracy with multiple objectives constitutes one offense, regardless of how many different crimes it aims to commit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNegron and others operated a cocaine trafficking enterprise that imported cocaine from Puerto Rico to Florida and carried cash back. Evidence at trial…
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 Same Elements Test cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge.
The evidence at Jose Negron Gil de Rubio’s trial proved that he and others were involved in an ongoing operation that imported cocaine from Puerto Rico to Florida and carried cash back. Negron was convicted of money laundering, racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and conspiracy to commit drug trafficking. With one exception, we reject his arguments on appeal without discussion. We agree with Negron’s contention that the dual conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy.
The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. Without a clear statement to show that the legislature intended to authorize separate punishments for multiple offenses arising from the same criminal transaction, courts generally apply the “same elements” test to determine whether there are separate offenses in a given case. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17, 19-20 (Fla. 2001). In Florida, this test is codified as part of section 775.021, Florida Statutes (2004).
The courts have acknowledged, however, that a Blockburger analysis is ill-suited to a conspiracy case. United States v. Sinito, 723 F. 2d 1250, 1256 (6th Cir.1983) (recognizing “inherent infirmities” in applying traditional double jeopardy analysis to conspiracy cases), disagreed with on other grounds by United States v. Wilson, 237 F. 3d 827 (7th Cir.2001). Indeed, Block-burger was not mentioned in the seminal Florida case explaining the unique nature of a conspiracy, Brown v. State, 130 Fla. 479, 178 So. 153, 156 (Fla.1938), nor has it been discussed in the cases that followed.
At the heart of any conspiracy is an agreement. The offense is defined as follows: “A person who agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or persons to commit any offense commits the offense of criminal conspiracy....” § 777.04(3), Fla. Stat. (2004). If there is but a single agreement, then there is but a single conspiracy even though it involves the commission of multiple crimes. Durden v. State, 901 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). As the supreme court long ago explained:
It is well established that a single conspiracy may have for its object the violation of two or more criminal laws or two or more substantive offenses. The conspiracy is one offense and a single offense, no matter how many violations of the law have been the object of the conspiracy. And so one may not be convicted or acquitted of a conspiracy to accomplish a certain criminal act and again be put in jeopardy for the trial for the offense of the same conspiracy to commit a different criminal act.
Brown, 178 So. at 156.
In this case, the State proved that Neg-ron took part in a single conspiracy with multiple objectives, including racketeering and drug trafficking. There was no evidence to suggest that a first conspiracy was consummated, abandoned, or otherwise terminated prior to the formation of a second conspiracy. See, e.g., Doolin v. State, 650 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Cam v. State, 433 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, we reverse Negron’s conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit racketeering, which drew a lesser sentence when compared to the minimum mandatory term for the drug trafficking conspiracy. In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
ALTENBERND, J., and SALCINES, E.J., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Nestor Rios v. State, 19 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ssue that we have determined appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise. However, a little over a month after the issuance of a per curiam affirmed opinion in the direct appeal in this case, this court issued Negron Gil de Rubio v. State, 987 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), wherein we cited to Durden in holding that Negron’s convictions for both conspiracy to commit drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit racketeering were barred by double jeopardy principles. We stated: “[T]he State proved that N…
-
Vasquez v. State, 111 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…jeopardy for the same offense.... ”); Rios v. State, 19 So. 3d 1004, 1006-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that convictions for both conspiracy to traffic in heroin and conspiracy to commit RICO violated double jeopardy); Negron Gil de Rubio v. State, 987 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that convictions on multiple conspiracy counts arising from a single agreement violated double jeopardy); Durden v. State, 901 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit a c…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 36 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…at appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that a double jeopardy -violation occurred when he was convicted of both conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to commit drug trafficking. He relies on Negron Gil de Rubio v. State, 987 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and Durden v. State, 901 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), both of which support his argument here. As noted above, Negron and Rodriguez were tried jointly. Count two of the su-persedeas information charged Rodriguez, Negron, Menen…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- Bryon Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2001)
- Brown v. State, 130 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1938)
- United States v. Sinito, 723 F.2d 1250 (6th Cir. 1983)
- Durden v. State, 901 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- CAM v. State, 433 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Doolin v. State, 650 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)