Long v. State

421 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · September 24, 1982

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal held that the RICO informations charging Whitehead and Gillen were legally insufficient under Beatty v. State. The court rejected the state's argument that the factual basis supporting the defendants' nolo contendere pleas cured the deficiency, reversed those RICO convictions, and affirmed the remaining judgments of guilt.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Writing for the Court
Grimes, Acting Chief Judge; Scheb, J.; Schoonover, J.
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
September 24, 1982
Procedural posture
After entering nolo contendere pleas while reserving the right to appeal the denial of several motions, the appellants appealed their convictions, including RICO convictions entered against Whitehead and Gillen.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Parties
Long, Whitehead, Gillen v. State
Disposition
reversed

Topics

criminal procedureplea bargainingappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the RICO information against Whitehead and Gillen was legally insufficient under Beatty v. State.
  2. Whether a stipulation of a factual basis accompanying nolo contendere pleas cured the deficiencies in the RICO information under Dean v. State.

Holdings

  1. The RICO information was legally insufficient for the reasons stated in Beatty v. State and should have been dismissed.
  2. A stipulation of a factual basis accompanying a nolo contendere plea did not cure the substantive and preserved deficiency in the RICO information under the circumstances presented.

Key quotations

Our holding in Dean must be limited to the particular circumstances of that case.
The RICO information against Whitehead and Gillen was insufficient for the reasons expressed in Beatty and should have been dismissed.

Factual background

The State charged Whitehead and Gillen with violation of the RICO statute and charged Long, Whitehead, and Gillen with conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances. The RICO information against Whitehead and Gillen was materially deficient, and the deficiency was specifically brought to the trial court's attention. The appellants entered nolo contendere pleas while reserving the right to appeal the denial of several motions.

Procedural history

The State charged Whitehead and Gillen with violating the RICO statute and charged all three appellants with conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances. The appellants pleaded nolo contendere, reserving appellate review of specified motions. The appellate court held that the RICO information against Whitehead and Gillen was legally insufficient and should have been dismissed, while affirming the remaining judgments of guilt.

Remand instructions

The RICO convictions against Whitehead and Gillen were reversed, and the RICO information should have been dismissed. The other judgments of guilt were affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…