Rogers v. State

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed convictions arising from the defendant's scheme to obtain and facilitate Small Business Administration loans through misrepresentations and unauthorized professional practices. The court affirmed the Florida RICO, false workers' compensation filing, unauthorized accountancy, grand theft, and contempt adjudications, but reversed the unauthorized practice of law conviction for insufficient evidence.

Holdings

1. Florida's RICO statute is not preempted merely because federal mail fraud is used as a predicate or definitional offense; the state statute prohibits racketeering, while the referenced federal offenses help define the state charge.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for filing false workers' compensation returns.
3. The evidence was insufficient to prove unauthorized practice of law in Florida because Rogers did not hold himself out as authorized to practice law in Florida and the record did not show that he actually practiced law there.
4. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for unauthorized practice of accountancy.
5. The evidence supported the third-degree-felony convictions for obtaining money by false pretenses or fraud because Rogers devised a scheme to defraud more than ten persons and received consideration from one or more clients or victims.
6. The trial court did not err in denying Rogers's motion to recuse the trial judge.
7. The adjudication of direct criminal contempt was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Florida's RICO statute could constitutionally be applied when the alleged racketeering activity included violation of the federal mail-fraud statute, despite claimed federal preemption.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for filing false workers' compensation returns.
3. Whether the evidence proved that Rogers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida.
4. Whether the evidence supported the conviction for unauthorized practice of accountancy.
5. Whether the evidence supported the convictions for obtaining money by false pretenses or fraud in violation of section 817.035(2), Florida Statutes (1981).
6. Whether the denial of Rogers's motion to recuse the trial judge was erroneous.
7. Whether the adjudication of direct criminal contempt was erroneous.

Disposition

other