CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...After law enforcement confirmed with U.S. Border Patrol that
Yanes-Blanco and all occupants of the van were illegally in the
United States, Yanes-Blanco was arrested and ultimately charged
with twenty felony counts of human smuggling, in violation of
section 787.07(1), Florida Statutes (2022), and one count of driving
without a valid driver’s license.
Yanes-Blanco filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss the human smuggling charges,
arguing that his charged conduct fell outside that conduct
prohibited by section 787.07(1)....
...337, 341 (1997)).
B.
The statute under which Yanes-Blanco was charged provides,
“A person who transports into this state an individual who the
person knows, or should know, is illegally entering the United
States from another country commits a felony of the third degree.”
§ 787.07(1), Fla....
...statute could be read to prohibit his conduct, Yanes-Blanco
suggests that the rule of lenity required dismissal of the twenty
human smuggling charges. The State rejected Yanes-Blanco’s
2 After the events giving rise to the charges against Yanes-
Blanco, section 787.07(1) was amended....
...ea fell outside the statute
under which he was charged.
The trial court’s analysis is contrary to the plain language of
the statute when properly understood in its context.
1.
Importantly, the focus of section 787.07(1) is the conduct of
the smuggler, not the illegal alien, in that it criminalizes the
smuggler’s transporting “into this state an individual who the
person knows, or should know, is illegally entering the United
States from another country.” § 787.07(1), Fla....
...And because the twenty
illegal aliens in Yanes-Blanco’s van continued illegally entering
the United States when driving from Texas to Florida (seemingly
directly, considering the gas receipt from Louisiana earlier that
same day), Yanes-Blanco’s alleged conduct falls within section
787.07(1) and was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
human smuggling.
2.
Finally, we reject the notion that the rule of lenity requires
dismissal of the human smuggling charges filed against Yanes-
Blanco. While the rule of lenity finds its origins in common law as
a canon of construction, “the Legislature has elevated lenity . . . to
a statutory command.” See Conage,
346 So. 3d at 602. As governing
this case, if section
787.07(1) “is susceptible of differing
constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to” Yanes-
Blanco. See §
775.021(1), Fla. Stat. However, the rule of lenity
comes into play only “at the end of the interpretive process” and
only if section
787.07(1) remains ambiguous after the Court has
employed traditional canons of construction....
...rather than a single moment in time; and in the context of
smuggling, the process does not end until the smuggler has
reached his/her destination.
A.
This case, as the majority has correctly stated, is based solely
on the interpretation of section 787.07, Florida Statutes (2021).
The issue revolves around the meaning of the words, “is illegally
entering the United States,” as used in the statute....
...Piccadilly
18
Cafeterias, Inc.,
554 U.S. 33, 47 (2008) (while the title “cannot
substitute for the operative text of the statute,” the title can help
resolve any “doubt about the meaning of a statute”).
Section
787.07 is entitled “Human smuggling.” The term
“smuggling,” like “entering,” is also in the progressive tense and
connotes a continuous or ongoing process....
...Defense counsel below appeared
to concede this point by acknowledging that if Yanes-Blanco had
driven the illegal aliens from Mexico to Florida, he would be in
violation of the statute. Therefore, Yanes-Blanco’s conduct, as
alleged by the State, fell within the confines of section 787.07 since
he had not yet reached his ultimate destination of the Orlando area
with the illegal aliens when he was apprehended.
19
II.
In discussing the impact th...
...Rts. v. Gov. of Ga.,
691 F.3d 1250, 1265–67
(11th Cir. 2012), and United States v. Alabama,
691 F.3d 1269,
1285–88 (11th Cir. 2012). In addition, on May 10, 2023, Governor
DeSantis signed into law Senate Bill 1718 (“SB 1718”), which
amended section
787.07; and the Southern District of Florida
recently found that the newly enacted version of section
787.07 is
preempted by federal law in Farmworker Ass'n of Fla., Inc. v.
Moody,
734 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (S. D. Fla. 2024). These issues were
not argued below, but they were addressed in the State’s initial
brief; and because the issue of whether section
787.07 is preempted
by federal law was not properly preserved below, I agree with the
majority opinion’s approach not to address this matter.
III.
Since it is clear from federal law that the act of il...
...entering the United States does not end once an individual crosses
the border in every case, and that smuggling is an ongoing process
that is not completed until the smuggler reaches his or her
destination, I agree that the State has made out a prima facia case
for a violation of section 787.07 and that reversal is appropriate in
this case.
Finally, the trial court had concern about guidance for the jury
on this issue should the case proceed to a jury trial, since there are
no standard jury instructions regarding this statute....
