Filer v. State, 72--615
| Decision Date | 12 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--615,72--615 |
| Citation | 285 So.2d 669 |
| Parties | Joseph FILER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant Joseph Filer and one Robert Leonard were charged by information with conspiring together to commit a felony, to-wit: the sale of heroin. No one else was named in the information as a co-conspirator, nor was it averred that appellant conspired with any unknown persons.
After the State had concluded its case, Leonard's motion for directed verdict of acquittal was granted. The lower court denied appellant's motion for directed verdict, and the trial proceeded with appellant being the sole defendant in the case. Pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty, the lower court adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to three years imprisonment.
It is not necessary, to sustain a conviction for a conspiracy, that co-conspirators be charged. Ng Pui Yu v. United States, 9th Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 626; Feldstein v. United States, 9th Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1092. See DiStefano v. Langston, Fla.1973, 274 So.2d 533. However, in those cases the defendants were charged with conspiring with other persons, who had not been acquitted. But where the information or indictment alleges that the defendant and other individuals named as co-defendants were the sole perpetrators of the conspiracy, and the other individuals were acquitted, conviction must be reversed. Herman v. United States, 5th Cir. 1961, 289 F.2d 362; Romontio v. United States, 10th Cir. 1968, 400 F.2d 618; cf. Lubin v. United States, 9th Cir. 1963, 313 F.2d 419; United States v. Cabrera, 5th Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 956; United States v. Sparrow, 10th Cir. 1972, 470 F.2d 885.
Appellant's motion for directed verdict should have been granted.
In view of our holding, it is unnecessary to consider appellant's remaining points.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Powell
...are tried together, a few Florida courts, including the First District Court of Appeal in Pearce, adopted the exception. Filer v. State, 285 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Pearce v. State, 330 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Cravero v. State, 334 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 34......
-
State v. Powell
...been overruled. Our decision in Pearce applied the "rule of consistency," adopting the rationale of our sister court in Filer v. State, 285 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). In Filer, the court relied exclusively on federal case law, including Herman v. United States, 289 F.2d 362 (5th Cir.), c......
-
Pearce v. State
...The rule in this jurisdiction was succinctly stated by Judge Hobson, speaking for the Second District Court of Appeal in Filer v. State, 285 So.2d 669 (Fla.App.2nd 1973), viz: 'But where the information or indictment alleges that the defendant and other individuals named as co-defendants we......
-
Sparkman v. State, 86-2347
...document as having conspired with a defendant is acquitted, the defendant's conviction for conspiracy cannot stand. See Filer v. State, 285 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). We, accordingly, reverse the appellant's conviction on the conspiracy to sell cocaine charge and remand so that this char......