FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

No cases reported.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No cases reported.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ A.L. v. State of Florida, Docket # 2D17-4572

Juvenile delinquency adjudication for Petit Theft and Criminal Mischief reversed, evidence insufficient.  Video showed two males breaking into various cars and stealing items.  No witnesses were able to identify A.L. as one of the two individuals in the surveillance video. In fact, there was no other evidence connecting A.L. to the thefts and criminal mischief aside from evidence that he lived on the same street where the offenses took place. Police searched the Appellant’s bedroom he shared with a brother and found stolen items.  The State’s case was based entirely upon the statutory inference set forth in Florida Statutes § 812.022(2).  Because the items were found in a bedroom that A.L. shared with his brother and there was no other evidence linking A.L. to the thefts, there was insufficient evidence that his possession of the items was exclusive, recent, and involved a distinct and conscious assertion of possession.  Judgment of acquittal granted

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Castro Guerra v. State of Florida, Docket # 3D19-760

Appeal from order denying motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant contends he is eligible for immediate release due to Florida Department of Corrections improperly calculating gain time. Appellant’s proper avenue was a petition for writ of habeas. Circuit Court of Miami-Dade lacked territorial jurisdiction since Appellant was not housed there. Reverse and remand with instructions to treat the motion to correct illegal sentence as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and transfer the action the county in which Appellant is housed.

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. Jose Quintanilla, Docket # 3D18-1483

State appeal of order suppressing compulsory blood draw under section 316.1933, Florida Statutes (2019). State contends that the trial court elevated the standard of proof required to conduct a blood draw under the Fourth Amendment. Fatal automobile crash where responding officer smelled strong odor of alcohol from Appellee as well as bloodshot and watery eyes. Veteran officer conducted further sobriety probe. Language barrier prevented useful interview. Officer ordered treating paramedic to perform warrantless, non-consensual blood draw. Appellee charged with one count of DUI manslaughter. Motion to suppress blood draw arguing lack of probable cause. Evidentiary hearing held. Trial court held that no probable cause existed for blood draw. A warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw of a suspected impaired driver has only been found to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if: (1) there was probable cause that the individual had been driving under the influence of alcohol; (2) the blood was drawn pursuant to a specifically established exception to the warrant requirement; and (3) the blood draw was performed in a reasonable manner. Officer possessed knowledge that Appellee was driving the vehicle and probable cause to determine that he was impaired. Reverse the suppression order.

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Michael Reed v. State of Florida, Docket # 4D17-3778

Appeal revocation of probation and resulting sentence. Argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the violation filed against him in 2017 because the trial court imposed only “a year” of probation in 2013. Scrivener’s error, should have been “eight years.” Affirmed. Further argues that court failed to make findings of fact supporting determination that Appellant posed a danger to the community and that there were errors in the scoresheet. Reverse for resentencing due to scoresheet error. Remand for entry of revocation order specifying the conditions of probation violated. Because appellant was on felony probation for an aggravated battery committed after the effective date of Florida’s Anti-Murder Act, appellant qualified as a Violent Felony Offender of Special Concern (“VFOSC”). Trial court held hearing on danger to community and issued written finding, but not conditions of probation violated in written findings.

CLICK TO READ Vinceson Dawson v. State of Florida, Docket # 4D18-1586

Conviction after trial for one count of trafficking in oxycodone in an amount greater than 25 grams but less than 100 grams and one count of possession of cocaine reversed, new trial ordered. Multiple references to collateral crimes evidence deprived Appellant of a fair trial. Officers observed Appellant in vehicle with passenger, converged on vehicle and found prescription pill bottle, crack cocaine, cash, cell phones and baggies containing oxycodone. No items tested for fingerprints or DNA.Appellant and passenger denied knowledge. At trial state’s witnesses referred to surveillance and search warrants. Defense objected and called for mistrial. Trial court denied and provided curative instructions. State persisted. Jury sent out note asking about search warrant. Motion for new trial also denied. “The erroneous admission of irrelevant collateral crimes evidence is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 913–14 (Fla. 2002). Multiple improper references to search warrant had the effect of informing the jury that the Appellant had previously engaged in illegal drug activity. For collateral crimes evidence to be “inextricably intertwined,” the evidence must be “necessary to (1) adequately describe the deed; (2) provide an intelligent account of the crime(s) charged; (3) establish the entire context out of which the charged crime(s) arose; or (4) adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crime(s).” Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Reverse and remand for new trial.

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Asia Roshonda Simpson v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D18-1104

Appeals conviction and sentence for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm. Argues improper questioning of jurors on understanding and opinion of battered spouse syndrome. Reversed. Appellant argued that discharge of firearm was justified use of force based on her experience as a battered woman. Defense counsel discussed battered spouse syndrome. State objected. Counsel sidebar with trial judge and defense noted that this was the sole defense theory. Trial judge precluded defense questions holding that this would be improper discussion of evidence. At the end of jury selection defense renewed objection to excluding questions. Defendant testified on extensive abuse historically and on day of incident. Experts testified that she suffered from battered spouse syndrome. Jury found her guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Trial court improperly prevented defense from inquiring into bias of jurors.

CLICK TO READ Cory Tate v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D18-695

Appeals judgment and sentence based on revisions to “Stand Your Ground” Law (2017). Reverse and remand for new immunity hearing where state will bear the burden of proof. If, after the hearing, the trial court concludes thatAppellant is entitled to immunity, it shall enter an order to that effect and dismiss theinformation with prejudice. If, on the other hand, the trial court determines that Appellantis not entitled to immunity from prosecution, it shall enter an order containing its findingsand reinstate Appellant’s convictions. Certify conflict with Third District Court of Appeal and Fourth District Court of Appeal.

CLICK TO READ J.P.S. v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D18-2663

J.P.S., who was fourteen years old, entered a plea to lewd or lascivious conduct in violation of section 800.04(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2017). The court withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed J.P.S. on probation until he turned nineteen years old. Defense counsel objected to probation length as it exceeded three-year maximum. Reversed and remanded for new sentencing

CLICK TO READ Mario Jerome Wilson v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D18-26

Appeal from judgment and sentence after remand for resentencing. Trial court erred in denying request for de novo resentencing. Appellant entered a plea to which sentence was capped at 25 years. Filed motion for post-conviction relief arguing that sentence imposed did not conform to plea agreement and sought to withdraw plea. Court declined to allow withdrawal of plea. Amended sentence by reducing probationary period consistent with cap. Affirm not allowing withdrawal of plea but concluding that defendant had right to be present at resentencing. Trial court made clear that it would not hear any evidence at all. Remanded for de novo resentencing.

CLICK TO READ Patrick Borrico v. State of Florida, Docket # 5D17-4114

Appeal conviction for trespassing on a construction site (count I) and resisting an officer with violence (count II). Argues that judgment of acquittal should have been granted. Sufficient evidence on count II, but not count I. To prove trespassing on construction site look to Florida Statute on definition of “posted land.” State’s only evidence regarding signage a “no trespassing” sign on the ground by portable restroom.  Evidence was insufficient. Information specifically charged Appellant with trespassing on a legally posted construction site and the State failed to introduce evidence that the site was legally posted in accordance with section 810.011(5)(a).

CLICK TO READ S.C.B. v. State of FLorida, Docket # 5D18-2859

S.C.B. appeals trial court’s disposition order following a plea. adjudicated delinquent on one count of dealing or trafficking in stolen property, a second-degree felony; four counts of burglary of a conveyance and two counts of grand theft, which are third-degree felonies; as well as twocounts of petit theft and one count of misdemeanor possession of cannabis. Committed S.C.B. to non-secure residential program followed by probation. Argues that trial court erred in adjudicating delinquent of dealing or trafficking in stolen property because he did not plea to that and a new hearing with new disposition report issued. Argues that he was committed to program with mandatory Comprehensive Evaluation Report. In exchange for guilty plea, State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on the remaining seven charges. Department of Juvenile Justice had incorrect information as a result. Vacate disposition orders and remand for new hearing.

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. Joronjaye Leprino Teague, Docket # 5D18-904

State appeals trial court decision to withhold adjudication after jury trial on fleeing and eluding charge. Florida Statute 316.1935 expressly prohibits the court from withholding adjudication on any violation of this section. Reverse for trial court to enter adjudication of guilt.

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. Maurice Lee Willis, Docket # 5D18-2766

State appeal of motion to suppress physical evidence.  At a christening in a church, people noticed a stranger sitting alone in the back of the church wearing a bulletproof vest over his clothing and called 911.  Police arrived and spoke with the Defendant, who said he was fine and started to walk away.  Police then considered Baker-Acting the Defendant and then patted him down, finding a gun in his pocket.  The trial court suppressed, and the Fifth DCA reversed, finding that the police command to “hold up” was not a seizure, and was a proper investigatory stop.

THIS CASE GIVES A GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE 3 LEVELS OF POLICE ENCOUNTERS UNDER POPPLE v. STATE AND THE FOUR FACTORS WHICH TURN A CONSENSUAL STREET ENCOUNTER INTO AN INVESTIGATORY STOP AND WHETHER A PERSON IS IN CUSTODY FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT PURPOSES.