two or more circuits” was not satisfied. Id. at 1116. In the instant ease, the crimes did not take place only in Miami-Dade County, and because a co-perpetrator possessed and transported contraband through several different judicial circuits and was therefore susceptible to prosecution in any of those judicial circuits in which he transported the contraband, we conclude that the “affecting two or more circuits” requirement was met. See King v. State, 790 So.2d 477, 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (concluding the OSP had the authority to prosecute burglary charges that occurred in a single judicial circuit, where the burglary was part of a business enterprise (the operation of a chop shop) that was located in another judicial circuit);. Suiero v. State, 248 So.2d 219, 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (<HOLDING>). Ross v. State, 664 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA
holding that the criminal act of one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is attributable to the other conspirators for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense  holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that venue is proper in any district where any act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place holding that a prosecution for a criminal conspiracy may be brought in the county where the unlawful combination is formed or in any county where the overt act is committed by any of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful confederacy holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators