MAURIO HALL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A conspiracy conviction cannot be sustained where the evidence shows only that one party agreed to sell and another agreed to buy a controlled substance, without evidence that both parties agreed to commit the same crime.
[1] A conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance requires evidence that both parties agreed to commit the same crime; a transaction in which one party agrees to sell and…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“There was no evidence in the record of the two parties agreeing to perform the same crime, i.e., either the purchase or the sale of MDMA; and thus, no conspiracy was proven.”
Court's explanation for why the conspiracy conviction lacked evidentiary support
Maurio Hall was convicted of RICO, drug possession, and two drug conspiracy charges after a jury trial. His conspiracy-to-sell-MDMA conviction was bas…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
MAURIO HALL,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-3505
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 14, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Melanie Chase, Judge.
Maria DeLiberato and Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer, of Parmer DeLiberato, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Maurio Hall, was convicted after a jury trial of racketeering (“RICO”), possession of heroin, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, conspiracy to sell or deliver MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), and conspiracy to sell or deliver heroin. He raises several issues on appeal, only one of which we find to have
2 merit. For the following reasons, Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to sell MDMA is reversed. We affirm Appellant’s remaining convictions without further discussion. Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to sell MDMA was predicated upon testimony from an unidentified voice heard over a taped recording of a telephone conversation between the voice and Appellant. In that recording, the unknown caller agreed to buy some MDMA from Appellant, along with other drugs. Such evidence is not sufficient to prove a “conspiracy,” as Appellant was simply agreeing to sell MDMA, while the caller was agreeing to purchase the drug from Appellant. In other words, a typical “buy/sell” transaction was discussed. There was no evidence in the record of the two parties agreeing to perform the same crime, i.e., either the purchase or the sale of MDMA; and thus, no conspiracy was proven. See Schlicher v. State, 13 So. 3d 515, 517–18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). For the reasons stated above, Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to sell or deliver MDMA is reversed. Additionally, because the record does not conclusively show that the trial court would have imposed the same sentences on Appellant’s other convictions without the now-reversed conviction for conspiracy to sell or deliver MDMA, this matter is remanded to the trial court for Appellant to be resentenced on his remaining convictions using a corrected scoresheet. See Pierce v. State, 281 So. 3d 569, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“In general, when the vacation of a conviction would result in changes to the defendant’s scoresheet, the defendant is entitled to be resentenced using a corrected scoresheet.” (quoting Tundidor v. State, 221 So. 3d 587, 605 (Fla. 2017))).
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.
EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., and TAKAC, M.G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tundidor v. State, 221 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2017)
- Schlicher v. State, 13 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Pirie v. State, 281 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)