Jaffe v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 27 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1783,84-1783 |
| Citation | 463 So.2d 318,10 Fla. L. Weekly 70 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 70 Sidney JAFFE, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Edwin SANDERS, as Judge, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael L. Von Zamft of Kravitz & Von Zamft, Hialeah, and Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., Gainesville, for petitioner.
No appearance for appellee.
This case involves double jeopardy and collateral estoppel.
Petitioner, Sidney Jaffe, was first charged, tried, convicted and sentenced as to twenty-eight counts of unlawful land sales practices allegedly in violation of sections 498.033(3) and 498.059, Florida Statutes (1979). Those convictions and sentences were reversed by this court not because of any insufficiency of the evidence to establish a properly charged crime but because the charging document failed to state a criminal cause of action, in that, the cited statutes prohibited material changes, alterations or modifications in the subdivider's offering and the charging document in that prosecution alleged that Jaffe had made a material change, alteration or modification of the order of registration. Jaffe v. State, 438 So.2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Jaffe has now been charged with the offense of organized fraud as proscribed by section 817.036, Florida Statutes (1981), it being alleged that he fraudulently obtained money from certain persons by misleading them to believe he would deliver them marketable title to certain property.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the organized fraud charge on the grounds of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel. The trial judge denied those motions. This is a petition for this court to issue its writ of prohibition to bar Jaffe's continued prosecution on the organized fraud charge on the same two grounds asserted in the motions to dismiss before the trial court.
There is no double jeopardy impediment to prosecution of the organized fraud charge against Jaffe by virtue of the prior unlawful land sales practice charges in that, even if the two criminal prosecutions related to the exact same factual circumstances (and they do not), the two statutory offenses involved are substantively different in that each statutory offense has many essential constituent elements that the other offense does not have. See Borges v. State, 415 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982); State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla.1984); State v. Baker, 456 So.2d 419 (Fla.1984); Monarca v. State, 412 So.2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Bartee v. State, 401 So.2d 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Preston v. State, 397 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Furthermore, Jaffe, supra, in effect held the charging document in the first prosecution failed to allege a crime,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaffe v. Snow
...below refusing to recognize and enforce Ruth Jaffe's Canadian judgment. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. 1 Jaffe v. Sanders, 463 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Jaffe v. State, 438 So.2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 436 So.2d 99 (Fla.1983); State ex rel. Boyles v. Florida ......
-
Jaffe v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc.
...charged with eight counts of criminal "organized fraud," again related to the allegedly fraudulent land deals. See Jaffe v. Sanders, 463 So.2d 318 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1984) (holding that the prior convictions did not bar — by collateral estoppel or double jeopardy — prosecution of criminal fr......
-
Jaffe v. Grant
...in the Court of Appeals may prove pyrrhic, however; Jaffe was subsequently charged with organized fraud. See Jaffe v. Sanders, 463 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1985).2 Jaffe et al. also challenge the district court's purported application of res judicata to the state court criminal judgm......