Attorney for Ray Sansom will try to get criminal case dismissed Wednesday in Tallahassee

Today is a critical day for Ray Sansom.

In a courtroom in Tallahassee, the embattled state legislator's attorney will attempt to get the criminal case against him dismissed, short-circuiting a high-profile trial that carries significant risks.

Sansom's attorney will argue that a state prosecutor does not have evidence that Sansom fraudulently obtained $6 million in taxpayer money for an airport building that a private developer allegedly planned to use. The lawyer will also assert that the case violates the separation of powers protection in the Florida Constitution.

"To us, it's a pretty clear reading of the law," said lawyer Steve Dobson. "Of course the important thing is, does the judge feel that way?"

State Attorney Willie Meggs, meanwhile, contends he has a solid case based on thousands of documents and hours of witness testimony.

In an interview made public Tuesday, an employee for developer Jay Odom indicates — as others have done in sworn testimony — that the plan was for aircraft to be stored inside part of the building, which was to be built by Northwest Florida State College as an emergency training and response facility.

To that end, the employee said he worked with an architect to ensure the "largest" of private airplanes could fit inside the building.

But today's hearing could hinge largely on seven words: "Okaloosa JT Use Emergency Response Workforce Center."

That's how the line item in the 2007 state budget described the $6 million building. Meggs will present an earlier budget document that included the location, Destin Airport, on land Odom leased for his corporate jet business and then subleased to the college.

By omitting the location, Meggs contends, Sansom was disguising that the building would also be used by Odom, a friend and major contributor to the Republican Party.

A grand jury agreed and indicted Sansom on a charge of official misconduct for allegedly falsifying an official record "with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person, or to cause harm to another."

Meggs concedes the seven-word description contains no falsehoods but argues that the point is not what the line says but what it does not say.

But Dobson said it would be misleading "and perhaps an outright falsehood" to mention a lease to Odom because one had not been worked out.

"Simply stated, the defendant did not control the ultimate decision as to whether or not a certain portion of the property would be leased to a private entity," Dobson wrote.

College officials had insisted there were no plans between the college and Odom. But e-mail and other records show there were discussions for Odom to use the building.

Dobson argues that once the money was appropriated, "the Legislature had no further responsibility, or authority, to ensure that the allocated funds were lawfully disbursed. That responsibility fell to the Department of Education."

Sansom sidestepped normal DOE procedures in getting the money for the college in 2007, saying the funds became available late.

He said he called ex-college president Bob Richburg and asked if he could use it for an emergency operations and training facility. Sansom, in interviews, has denied knowing Odom planned to use the building.

But Meggs has uncovered an e-mail in which Richburg discussed the project and Odom's use. The key: It was sent before Sansom got the money.

Richburg and Odom have also been indicted on the official misconduct charge. Richburg also faces a perjury charge, as does Sansom, for allegedly lying about Odom's plans.

Lawyers for Richburg and Odom have filed motions to dismiss as well, and they will be heard this morning by Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who may not rule immediately. Odom, who declined to testify before the grand jury in April, argues in a motion that he had a First Amendment right to attempt to lease space in the building, citing a statute that allows a college to lease space to a person as long as the trustees determine it is in the best interest.

Among various arguments Dobson lays out in two motions to dismiss is a separation of power clause.

"The prosecution at issue amounts to a wholesale attack on the integrity and autonomy of the legislative branch," he wrote. "The prosecutor has no lawful authority over matters of budget, and this criminal proceeding is a thinly veiled attempt to attack the defendant's position on a matter of policy."

Alex Leary can be reached at leary@sptimes.com.