Case ID: so2d_626/html/0251-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Max KESSLER, Arnold Hecht, and Bardo, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 92-2356.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Sept. 22, 1993.
    Rehearing or Certification and Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 24, 1993.
    J. Scott Raft, Asst. State Atty., and James P. McLane, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    James S. Benjamin and Daniel R. Aaron-son, Benjamin & Aaronson, P.A., Fort Laud-erdale, for appellees.
    Thomas F. Luken, Fort Lauderdale, for amicus curiae Fashion Cinema, Inc., and Isabelle and Samuel Munz, and Grafton N. Carlson, Fort Lauderdale, for amicus curiae Margaret Gentile.
   PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order being appealed dismissed Counts I and II of the information against appellees, and rejected appellant’s contention that lewdness and assignation under section 796.07, Florida Statutes (1989), were predicates to support a RICO prosecution pursuant to chapter 895, Florida Statutes. The trial court did not accept appellant’s position that the phrase “relating to prostitution” in section 895.02(l)(a)(16), Florida Statutes (1989), included lewdness and assignation. We agree and affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.