FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

No reversals reported.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. Valdase L. Barnhart, Docket # 1D19-3620 and 1D19-3666

Appeals trial court’s denial of motion for judgment of acquittal. Was found guilty after jury trial for one count of fraudulent use of personal identification information and one count of grand theft. The fraudulent use of personal identification requires a three-year minimum mandatory sentence. State appeals sentence. Remanded for resentencing to include minimum mandatory term.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ AOH, juvenile v. State of Florida, Docket # 3D20-854

Appeals trial court order adjudicating delinquent for trespass in a conveyance. State filed a petition for delinquency charging A.O.H. with one count of grand theft of a vehicle (Count I) and one count of burglary of an unoccupied conveyance (Count II). At the adjudicatory hearing, Officer Gutierrez, Officer Rodriguez, and the owner of the vehicle testified on behalf of the State. Trespass involving a stolen vehicle requires knowledge of the vehicle’s status as stolen. Statements and testimony do not reflect that A.O.H. had knowledge that the vehicle was stolen. Reverse and remand for entry of judgment of dismissal.

CLICK TO READ Dulie Alonzo Green, Jr. v. State of Florida, Docket # 3D18-2429

Appeals from a final order following a resentencing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama. Argues that jury was required to make a finding that he actually killed or intended to kill the victim. I n1995 police discovered victim’s body in a trunk of a car submerged in a canal. Death by drowning. Autopsy showed sexual intercourse prior to death. Case went cold until 2003. Person came forward and told police about incriminating statements allegedly made by Green. After further investigation, Green and co-defendant Victor Pestano were arrested and charged with first-degree murder, armed sexual battery, armed carjacking, and kidnapping with a weapon for the crimes committed in 1995, when Green was 15 years old. Found guilty, but jury verdict form did not specify the theory under which he was convicted of first-degree murder. Was resentenced, but argued that he had to be resentenced under 775.082(1)(b)2 because there was no jury finding that he actually killed or intended to kill the victim as required by section 775.082(1)(b)1. Sentenced under (b)1, and ruled he was eligible for review after 25 years. Because jury did not conclude that he killed or intended to kill he is to be resentenced, or if requested by State to empanel a jury to make necessary factual determination.

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

CLICK TO READ United States v. Marcus Carroll, Docket # 19-12282

Appeals denial of motion for reduced sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. Carroll’s offense was conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least 5 kilograms of powder cocaine and at least 50 grams of crack cocaine. Carroll’s offense was “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2” of the Fair Sentencing Act, and he committed his offense before the Fair Sentencing Act became effective. Carroll’s offense is a covered offense and the First Step Act gives Carroll the opportunity to make his case for a reduction in his sentence. See id. Because the district court erred in determining the Fair Sentencing Act would have no impact on Carroll’s sentence, vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Also, allows consideration of motion for compassionate release on remand.

CLICK TO READ United States v. Stacy Paul Waddell, Docket # 18-10980

Appeals conviction for wire fraud, possession and sale of counterfeit coins and attempted destruction of evidence. Was running an online business purporting to sell gold and silver below market prices. Took wires of money and cut off communications. Argues that the district court should have suppressed evidence discovered through warrantless searches of a corporate website and corporate mail. He further argues that the Government failed to prove that wire transfers for two of the wire fraud counts were “for the purpose of executing” a scheme to defraud. Contends that the Government violated his confrontation and due process rights by withholding evidence and playing an edited videotaped deposition of a deceased fraud victim for the jury. He further appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in its assessment of loss amount and in applying a leadership-role enhancement.

Reverse the conviction on Count 1, concluding that insufficient evidence supported that conviction. Also remand for further fact-finding and legal analysis by the district court as to the warrantless search of the computer website, as well as for the district court to conduct a new sentencing proceeding at which it should make factual findings concerning the loss calculation it made when sentencing Defendant. As to Defendant’s other allegations of error, disagree with Defendant and affirm the district court’s rulings on those matters.