FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

No reversals reported.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. Cody Wayne Berens, Docket # 1D22-71

In December of 2019, law enforcement began investigating Defendant for selling native venison meat, which is prohibited Florida Statutes § 379.401.  Defendant sold an undercover law enforcement officer processed native venison meat on two occasions. At the time of the sale, Defendant told the officer that he was not selling the native venison meat. He claimed he was recuperating his costs for the processing and storage of the native venison meat that a hunter abandoned.  He was charged with violating Florida Statutes § 379.401, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-12.004(7)

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the same arguments he made to law enforcement.  The trial court ultimately agreed with Defendant. It found that because Defendant had a lien against the processed native venison meat, which was foodstuff or a meat product, Florida Statutes § 713.58(1) superseded Rule 68A-12.004(7).  When a party contracts to have services performed on his property and fails to pay for those services, the person who performed the services may be entitled to a lien on that property. § 713.58, Fla. Stat. (2019−2020). Usually, a person who has a lien on personal property can sell that personal property to recuperate his loss under Florida Statutes § 85.031.

The First DCA reversed and reinstated the charges.  It found that Florida Statutes § 713.58 does not relate to the sale or regulation of anything.   It simply authorizes a lien on personal property.  The question before this Court is whether a meat processor can sell native venison meat when the hunter does not pay for the contracted processing services.   The  First DCA determined that the hunter cannot. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Ashley Rivera v. State of Florida, Docket # 4D2022-0652

Defendant was charged with Vehicular Homicide and Reckless Driving with Serious Bodily Injury after a car accident.  Whether Defendant went through a red light or a green light was a contested issue.  During voir dire, the defendant sought to question Juror 28 on the defendant’s main theory of the case, but the trial court sustained an objection to the questioning.  Defendant objected to the ruling, and the court reiterated that it could not question the juror regarding a legal theory.  The State then struck the same juror using a peremptory challenge.

The Fourth DCA reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in precluding her from questioning the jury on her main theory of defense during voir dire.  The trial court effectively precluded the defendant from asking any jurors about a potential bias that concerned the defendant’s main theory of defense. The error was not harmless.  New trial ordered.

CLICK TO READ John Whitelock Tellam v. State of Florida, Docket # 4D2022-2360

Defendant was convicted after trial for Trespassing on Land and Resisting an Officer Without Violence.  During the incident, he drove into a neighbor’s property in violation of the neighbor’s no trespass order and damaged the neighbor’s mailbox while backing out of the driveway.  After law enforcement was called, the deputy went to the Defendant’s residence and saw Defendant outside.  The Deputy identified himself, told Defendant he needed to speak with him and not to go inside the house, but Defendant ignored him and entered his home.  The Deputy pursued him and grabbed him as he crossed the threshold of his home, pulled him out and handcuffed him.  The trial court denied a motion for a judgment of acquittal.

The Fourth DCA reversed the Resisting an Officer Without Violence charge as legally insufficient.  It is settled that the State cannot prove that the police are in the lawful execution of a legal duty when they arrest a suspect if the arrest itself is executed unlawfully.  A  warrantless home entry, accompanied by a search, seizure, and arrest is not justified by hot pursuit when the underlying conduct for which there is alleged probable cause is a nonviolent misdemeanor and the evidence related thereto is outside the home.  As a result, the Court found that the deputies illegally entered Defendant’s home and were not lawfully executing a legal duty to arrest him. 

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Devin Tocco v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D23-1986

Defendant was charged with Driving Under the Influence – Third Offense Within 10 Years and Reckless Driving.  During the pendency of the case, the parties approached the judge three times with three possible plea agreements.  Each time the judge rejected the plea agreements.  Defendant moved to disqualify the judge, but the judge denied it as insufficient.  Defendant petitioned for a writ of prohibition to disqualify the judge.  The Fifth DCA granted the petition, finding that Defendant has established facts that would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.  Judge disqualified.

CLICK TO READ Anthony Virginia v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D23-0256

Defendant appealed the summary denied of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.  The motion alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his petit theft charge because it took place on the Jacksonville Naval Air Station, which he contends is “exclusively federal land and jurisdiction.”  Without attaching any records to refute Appellant’s claim, the trial court summarily denied Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion because subject matter jurisdiction should have been raised on direct appeal.

The Fifth DCA reversed, finding that lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time.

Case remanded for an evidentiary hearing or to attach the portions of the record that conclusively refute the Defendant’s claim.

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.