Florida Third District Court of Appeal – Criminal Headnotes – June 7, 2017
NELSON VLADIMIR GONZALEZ V. STATE OF FLORIDA – MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE – RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING
On remand for resentencing to take into account time previously served, the trial court simply entered a resentencing order, without notice or opportunity for the defendant to be heard, and without a transcript indicating its method of calculating the sentence. Although acknowledging the resentencing was “merely ministerial,” the appeals court rejects the state’s argument the error was harmless. Remanded (again) for resentencing with the defendant present and represented by counsel.
FRANK JACKSON V. STATE OF FLORIDA – SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
On appeal from conviction and sentencing for armed carjacking, robbery, and possession of firearm by a convicted felon, the appeals court finds the evidence, viewed in light most favorable to state, was sufficient to show that the defendant was armed during commission of crimes, and that he was the person who committed the crimes.
ROBERTO G. ORDONEZ-MEDINA V. STATE OF FLORIDA – POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING
The trial court did not err in denying a motion for post-conviction DNA testing where the defendant did not show reasonable probability he would have been acquitted if DNA evidence from the firearm had been admitted. The defendant had confessed to the shooting three separate times, the arresting officer saw the gun in his hand immediately after the shooting and took possession of it from the defendant’s car, and in an earlier proceeding the defendant had alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to offer evidence the shooting was accidental or the result of diminished capacity. The identity of the perpetrator was not at issue.
WILBER RODRIGUEZ V. STATE OF FLORIDA – DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF FROM SENTENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEGOTIATED PLEA
The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief from a sentence within the range of a negotiated plea on the grounds: (1) his lawyer had promised him a lighter sentence; (2) he entered the plea because he knew his lawyer was not prepared to try the case; and (3) his lawyer failed to present mitigation evidence at the sentencing hearing. The defendant under oath in the course of the plea colloquy had expressly waived each of these matters.