DENNIS ENRIQUE RONDON, 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.
Dennis Rondon sought habeas corpus relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on a sentencing error and a principal instruction error in his conspiracy conviction. The Fourth District denied the petition, finding no merit in any arguments raised.
The court held that Rondon invited any error by failing to request a limiting instruction for the principal instruction on the conspiracy count, and therefore cannot claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the unpreserved issue on direct appeal.
[1] A defendant cannot claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise an unpreserved issue on direct appeal.
[2] Giving a principal instruction in connection with a conspiracy charge, without objection or request for limitation, may constitute invited error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[T]he crime of conspiracy consists of an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense. Both an agreement and an intention to commit an offense are necessary elements of this crime.”
Establishes the legal definition of conspiracy as requiring both agreement and intent, not mere aiding and abetting.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRondon was convicted by jury of conspiracy to traffic in marijuana, trafficking in cannabis over twenty-five pounds, and racketeering arising from his…
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 Trafficking In Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant petitions for habeas corpus relief, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and also raises a sentencing error. We find no merit in any of the arguments raised. We deny the petition.
A jury convicted the defendant of conspiracy to traffic in marijuana, trafficking in cannabis over twenty-five pounds, and racketeering. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years on the conspiracy count, twenty-five years on the trafficking count, with a three-year mandatory minimum and $25,000 fine, and twenty-five years on count three, all sentences to run concurrent. The charges arose from the defendant’s participation in marijuana grow houses at multiple locations.
We affirmed his conviction and sentences on direct appeal. Rondon v. State, 72 So.3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
We write specifically to address the defendant’s argument that the trial court committed fundamental error in giving the principal instruction in connection with the conspiracy count. The defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit marijuana trafficking, trafficking, and RICO. He defended the charges by claiming he was not involved. The court read.the principal instruction after every count, including the conspiracy count.
The defendant now argues that without restricting the principal instruction to the trafficking and RICO counts, the jury could have improperly convicted him of conspiracy by being a principal. The State responds that the issue was not preserved, and his argument is inconsistent with the defense that he did not participate at all. This issue was not raised during the charge conference or on direct appeal.
In Evans v. State, 985 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), the Third District vacated the defendant’s conspiracy conviction because the trial court gave the principal instruction over counsel’s objection. Id. at 1105-08. “ ‘[T]he crime of conspiracy consists of an express or implied agree*362ment between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense. Both an agreement and an intention to commit an offense are necessary elements of this crime.’ ” Id. at 1106 (quoting Ramirez v. State, 371 So'.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)). “The problem with the giving of the principal instruction is that it allowed the jury to find the defendant to be a member of the conspiracy if the. jury concluded that he had done anything to aid or abet the underlying crime.” Id. at 1107.
Here, however, defense counsel did not ask to limit the principal instruction. In Laws v. State, 149 So.3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), we limited the Evans application. Id. at 105-06. There, we held that the failure to object to the principal instruction in the charge on a conspiracy count, coupled with asking the court to strike the language from the substantive instructions, constituted invited error. Id.
Laws controls the outcome in this case. Without requesting a limiting instruction, the defendant invited the error. He cannot now be heard to complain that his appellate lawyer was ineffective in failing to raise this issue on his direct appeal. It was an unpreserved issue and did not rise to the level of fundamental error. We find no merit in the other issues raised.
Petition Denied.
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allison v. State, 179 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…rd which conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief on ground one. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with,this opinion.1 WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . In reaching our decision, we distinguish Rondan v. State, 157 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (denying the defendant's petition for habeas corpus relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising on appeal the unpfeserved argument that the trial court erred'in giving the principal instruction in…
-
Bennett v. State, 257 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…g instruction at the charge ---PAGE 3--- 3 conference, and his counsel in fact stated that he saw no problem with the standard principal instruction. “Without requesting a limiting instruction, the defendant invited the error.” Rondon v. State, 157 So. 3d 360, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). If an error is invited, “the appellate court will not consider the error a basis for reversal.” Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 544 (Fla. 1999). Appellant therefore waived any argument of fundamental error in the jury in…
-
Scott v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2020)…case, a state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was granted where trial counsel objected to the instruction, but appellate counsel did not raise it on direct appeal. Id. The Respondent points to Rondon v. State, 157 So. 3d 360, 361 (4th DCA 2015), which held that appellate counsel was not ineffective where trial counsel did not object to a conspiracy instruction in a drug trafficking case, finding it did not rise to the level of fundamental error. Two federal…
Authorities Cited
- Florentino Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Kanisky Evans v. State, 985 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Laws v. State, 149 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Jerry v. State, 149 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)