FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

No reversals reported.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Trevontae Shuler v. State of Florida, Docket # 2D20-610

Appeals dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence filed per Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of criminal Procedure. Motion addressed one of four cases where he was found guilty after a jury trial of one count of robbery with a firearm. Sentenced to life as a prison releasee reoffender. entered a plea to a severed count of felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a concurrent term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. Per curiam affirmed on appeal.

Filed 3.800(a) motion, was dismissed by the court, and timely appealed. Raised double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is not raised under a 3.800 motion, but instead a 3.850 motion. Claims that attack convictions, not sentences are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). Court should have treated the motion like a 3.850 motion as it was timely filed and contained the requisite oath. Court mistakenly thought it did not have jurisdiction because there was a pending appeal on a 3.850 motion. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings treating the motion as a 3.850 motion.

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Willie Hudson v. State of Florida, Docket # 3D19-664

Appeals conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied conveyance. Argues that trial court erred in admitting evidence that he was the person that committed several earlier burglaries of the same victim’s vehicle.  Evidence elicited by the State during its questioning of the victim, even though the defense had, before trial, filed a motion in limine to prohibit the admission of such evidence, the State had agreed to this defense request, and the trial court had granted the motion in limine. State elicited testimony, defense objected, court overruled. State could not show that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State could have filed a “Williams Rule” notice, but that was not its intent. Prior car burglary attempts were relevant to case theories and why security cameras were installed, but not who had committed them. Testimony was echoed in closing argument. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. Douglas Daley, Docket # 4D19-3590

State appeals trial court order granting motion to suppress. Case was a tampering with evidence prosecution. Trial court ruled that the stop was not overly long but based on a vague “be on the lookout” (BOLO) alert. Trial court ruled that there was insufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and that all evidence obtained was “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Police setup a checkpoint about three blocks away from a residential burglary. BOLO described the burglary suspect as “a black male, approximately 5’11”, and wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt.” One of the officers testified that he and his colleague observed someone whom they believed matched this description, riding a bicycle without a front-facing headlight, in violation of section 316.2065(7), Florida Statutes (2018). This person was later identified as Defendant. The officers further observed Defendant riding his bicycle westbound from the area of the recently reported burglary, so they conducted a traffic stop at 1:24 a.m. Witnesses to the burglary could not identify him as the burglar. Officers held him while issuing citation for bike light. one of the officers who had arrived as backup observed a “small off white waxy looking object” in Defendant’s mouth. Defendant refused the officer’s order to spit the item out and instead swallowed it. Defendant was therefore arrested and charged with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, but he was not charged with any crimes related to the burglary or the lack of a bicycle headlight.

State argues, the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly stop Defendant because he matched the gender, race, height, and clothing identified in the BOLO, while being mere blocks away from where the burglary had just occurred, and while riding his bike away from the burglary scene. There is no evidence in the record that supports the trial court’s conclusion that the BOLO was “bare bones” or “legally insufficient.” Similar cases involving stop without bicycle headlight were justified. Police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Dissent argues that despite the officer testimony that he stopped the bicycle for not having a headlight he issued no infraction. Trial court assesses the credibility.

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Caleb Nathaniel Ruh v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D20-375

Appeals summary denial of 3.850 motion. Affirm on most but reverse to hold an evidentiary hearing on claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call a toxicology expert. Reverse and remand with instructions to correct scrivener’s error on scoresheet.

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. J.J.R, a child, Docket # 5D19-3768

State appeals order granting motion for extraordinary relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.140. Entered a plea to numerous charges and was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice in a non-secure residential program the same day. More than a year later, J.J.R. filed a motion for extraordinary relief, ostensibly under rule 8.140(a)(2). The motion sought release from the residential commitment program to post-commitment probation. The State objected, contending that J.J.R.’s motion was untimely. Plain language of the rule is that the motion shall not be made more than 1 year after judgment. Reversed and remanded.