Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Anthony PORCARO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-03-22
Citations: 539 So. 2d 615
Docket Number: No. 87-2597
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Anthony PORCARO, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 539
Pages: 615–615

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Anthony PORCARO, Appellee.
No. 87-2597.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 22, 1989.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Alfonso M. Saldana, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Deborah Marks of Hertzberg & Malinski, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
LETTS, Judge.
The question is whether there was prima facie evidence of extortion, the trial court being of the opinion that there was not when it granted a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss. We reverse.
In Matthews v. State, 363 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 2825, 61 L.Ed.2d 276 (1979), our supreme court enunciated that "in order for a demand and threat to be actionable under our extortion statute, it must be calculated to coerce the victim's acquiescence 'in order to prevent the threat from being carried out.' "
With this definition in mind, we are of the opinion that the threats involved here were more than adequate to state a prima facie case of guilt.
We have not enunciated the facts because we see no reason to memorialize the ugly and disgusting language employed. Suffice it to say, this cause is reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.