Page v. State
| Decision Date | 07 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D07-21.,5D07-21. |
| Parties | Ernest PAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roy D. Wasson, of Wasson and Associates, Chartered, Miami, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Ernest Page appeals his convictions for bribery by a public official and receiving unlawful compensation for official behavior, in violation of sections 838.015(1) and 838.016(2), Florida Statutes (2005), respectively. In the bribery by public servant count, the State alleged that Page, an Orlando City Commissioner, did
corruptly request or solicit any pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law with an intent to influence the performance of any act or omission, to-wit: approval of the 826 apartment unit development project in SOUTHWEST ORLANDO, believed to be within the official discretion of the public servant, to-wit: ERNEST PAGE, in violation of, or in performance of a public duty, for himself or another, to-wit: SOUTHWEST UNITED COMMUNITIES, INCORPORATED, a company that the said ERNEST PAGE was President or an employee of during the times alleged herein.
In the receiving unlawful compensation for official behavior count, the State alleged that Page, an Orlando City Commissioner, did
corruptly request or solicit any pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law, for the present or future exertion of any influence upon or with any other public servant, to-wit: the Orlando City Council and its housing Department, regarding any act or omission, to-wit: approval of the 826 apartment unit development project in SOUTHWEST ORLANDO, which was believed to have been within the official discretion of the other public servant, in violation of a public duty, or in performance of a public duty.
After his trial, Page was found guilty as charged on both counts. On appeal, Page argues that the trial court should not have let the jury decide his fate because the State failed to present any evidence establishing the various elements of these crimes. We have carefully considered each of Page's arguments and find them to be without merit. We write only to discuss Page's chief argument: that the State's evidence that he corruptly solicited a pecuniary benefit was at best circumstantial and failed to exclude the possibility that he was acting solely for the betterment of his community.
We review the trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal under the de novo standard. Isenhour v State, 952 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). "In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every reasonable conclusion favorable to the state that the trier of fact might fairly infer from the evidence." Id. (citing Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974)). "Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Siplin v. State, 972 So.2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 976 (Fla.1977)). Based on our de novo review, we find that the record contains direct evidence that Page corruptly solicited a pecuniary benefit.
Specifically, Jesus Rosario, a local car dealer and would-be real estate developer, testified that he and his three partners, the Stonewood Four, intended to convert 828 apartments into low-income condominiums in Page's city commission district. Rosario estimated the project would generate ten to twenty million dollars in profit. Page had suggested the project to Rosario and one of his partners, Al Pina, and had taken part in preliminary discussions with Wachovia Bank about the project's financing. However, the Stonewood Four never considered including Page or his company, Southwest United Communities ("SWUC") as...
To continue reading
Request your trial