Betancourt v. State, s. 69-205
| Decision Date | 18 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 69-205,s. 69-205 |
| Citation | 228 So.2d 124 |
| Parties | . STATE of Florida, Appellee. Eledoro Rodriguez CORRADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Luis Agustin MONTALVO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. to 69-207. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Barry L. Garber and Angus M. Stephens, Jr., Miami, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Ramon Betancourt, Eledoro Rodriguez Corrado, Luis Agustin Montalvo, and two others not parties to these appeals, were jointly charged in an information with (1) 'conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: the sale of marijuana', and (2) 'unlawful possession of marijuana. They were tried without a jury. Betancourt was adjudicated guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment on the possession count and to two and a half years on the conspiracy count, the sentences to run concurrently. Corrado and Montalvo were adjudicated guilty only on the possession count and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The separate appeals filed were consolidated for all appellate purposes. We have examined the record in the light of the contentions presented and affirm the judgments and sentences on each appeal.
The record reveals that the following events occurred on 31 December 1967. Detective Anthony Martin, a witness for the state, was at his home in Hialeah. At about 8 A.M. one Nestor Gonzales (a defendant tried separately) arrived at Martin's home by pre-arrangement. Shortly thereafter Detective Murphy, also a witness for the state, joined the two. Then a car containing Betancourt, Montalvo, Corrado, and one Garcia, stopped on the roadway near Martin's home. The car was followed by a panel truck. Betancourt got out of the car and directed the panel truck into Martin's back yard. The car parked about 300 feet from Martin's home. Betancourt went into the house and stated: Before the truck was unloaded, Martin, Murphy, and two police officers who had been waiting outside Martin's home arrested Betancourt, Gonzales, and two other men who were in the truck. The two officers who assisted Martin and Murphy in the arrests had been in unmarked cars and were wearing civilian clothes. All the officers drew guns when they made the arrests. About a minute after the officers placed the previously mentioned four men under arrest, the car in which Betancourt had arrived left at a high rate of speed. One officer fired a shot at the car and hit it. Various police officers gave chase and finally stopped it. During the chase a packet (which was not admitted as evidence) was thrown from the car. The occupants of the car, Montalvo (who had been driving), Corraod, and Garcia, were placed under arrest.
Evidence presented by the state showed that there had been twenty to twenty-five contacts (meetings or telephone conversations) concerning narcotics transactions between Detective Martin and Betancourt and Gonzales. Martin had agreed to take delivery of marijuana for a price of $45.00 per pound. Delivery of narcotics had been scheduled for various dates. The three agreed upon 31 December 1967 as the date for the sale of 600 to 1000 pounds of marijuana. About 592 pounds of marijuana were found in the truck driven to Martin's home.
Appellant Betancourt does not assign as error the possession of marijuana conviction. He does urge that the conviction for 'conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: the sale of marijuana' must be reversed under the holding of King v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 730. In King v. State the Supreme Court reversed James H. King's conviction for conspiracy with three other persons (one of whom was an agent of the Miami Crime Commission) to violate the statute forbidding the unlawful keeping or maintaining of a place for the purpose of gambling. The holding of the Supreme Court was 'that where two or more persons conspire with another who is, unknown to them, a government agent acting in the line of duty, to commit an offense under an agreement and an intention that an essential ingredient of the offense is to be performed by, and only by, such government agent, such persons may not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Webster, 18787.
...by a transfer of money is required to constitute the ‘offer’ which amounts to a ‘sale’ ” within definition of sale); Betancourt v. State, 228 So.2d 124, 126 (Fla.App.1969) (offer to sell is to sell within meaning of statute and actual purchase is not essential element); People v. Brown, 116......
-
State v. Webster
...a transfer of money is required to constitute the 'offer' which amounts to a 'sale''' within definition of sale); Betancourt v. State, 228 So. 2d 124, 126 (Fla. App. 1969) (offer to sell is to sell within meaning of statute and actual purchase is not essential element); People v. Brown, 116......
-
Williams v. State, 79-558
...1977), Williams v. State, 268 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972), Hargrett v. State, 255 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971), Betancourt v. State, 228 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969), Benitez v. State, 113 So.2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA Appellant cites as error also the trial judge's refusal to give an instruct......
-
State v. First, 77-1790
...243 So.2d 587 (Fla.1971). See: State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973); State v. Eckroth, 238 So.2d 75 (Fla.1970); Betancourt v. State, 228 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Chariott v. State, 226 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA Reversed and remanded ......