More hilarity from the courts…
Thompson v. DHSMV, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 837 (4th Jud. Cir., Aug. 31, 2012)
In this case, the court granted the Writ of Certiorari starting that “the hearing officer failed to follow the essential requirements of law…” To put this in perspective, the petitioner was trying to get his driving privileges reinstated (partially) after they were permanently revoked. Section 322.271(5), Florida Statutes, sets forth said procedure. The date this “mandate” was rendered was August 31, 2012. The date Mr. Thompson asked for his driving privileges back was October 15, 2010. Has not this court failed to follow the essential requirements of law with so long a delay? Hasn’t the Department’s decision been, in effect, granted by this delay? Anyhoo, I digress…
So section 322.271(5) allows a person to petition the Department for reinstatement of his/her driving privileges and requires that, to be considered for reinstatement, the person must demonstrate that he/she meets certain statutory criteria. This “criteria” is specifically and legibly spelled out in the statute. It cannot be missed or overlooked.
Mr. Thompson meet all the criteria except the one regarding not drinking in the last 5-years. After the hearing concluded, Mr. Thompson wanted to reopen the hearing because he realized that he was wrong on the date of his last drink because he was in prison on that date. The Department confirmed that he was indeed in prison on that date. Despite this the Department decided not to reinstate Mr. Thompson’s driving privileges for many reasons – none of which were the criteria required by statute.
The benevolent court has, almost 2 years later, granted Mr. Thompson’s petition, quashed the Department’s order denying his request, and has thrown him back into the ring with the lions for rehearing. Department 1 – Mr. Thompson 0.
State v. Abraham, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 843 (6th Jud. Cir., Jun 10, 2013)
Mr. Abraham was charged with “possession of simulated drugs” (A PEZ dispenser with candy shaped like pills with letters on them – just kidding). When the case was set for a non-jury trial the state’s witnesses did not appear because the law enforcement agency refused to accept the subpoenas (I’m guessing the subpoenas were served late). The state asked for a continuance. The court denied the continuance and the defense asked for dismissal based on “lack of prosecution,” which it got. The state appeals.
The appellate court reversed. Trial courts “do not have absolute discretion to deny a prosecution motion for continuance based on the absence of a witness.” The record revealed no lack of diligence or dilatory tactics on the part of the State Attorney and “no discernible prejudice or injustice to Mr. Abraham” if it had been granted. Moreover, there was no evidence that the prosecution had abandoned its prosecution. Therefore, the appellate court found that the lower court had abused its discretion.
Good case for prosectors to keep in their briefcase for those times when justice must prevail.
Moore v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. (6th Jud. Cir., May 13, 2013)
Poor Mr. Moore was found guilty of battery at trial. He had apparently touched somebody against their wishes and caused $11,000 in costs to the victim. Note: I did not say “damages” because that is usually much higher – just the victim’s out of pocket expenses (costs).
At sentencing the court ordered $11,001.08 in restitution and imposed it as a lien since the defendant was not going to be placed on probation (and, as the court noted, there was little chance of the defendant paying it within a year). The Defense did not “necessarily dispute the amount” but was concerned about documentation. The court ordered the amount and allowed the defense to have time for a hearing to dispute the amount if they wanted to. The defendant never asked for the hearing.
The defendant appeals the imposition of restitution. Because the defense never raised the question regarding “amount” at a hearing where the opportunity existed – it was not preserved. Amount of restitution – affirmed.
Lesson: “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.” -Dean Vernon Wormer.
Elam v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 856 (11th Jud. Cir., Jul 5, 2013)
Defendant was brought up on a violation of probation. The reasons alleged for violating said probation were for:
- Failure to enroll in Domestic Violence Class (BIP), and
- Complete 50 hours of community service at a rate of 5 hours per month.
The court found that he willfully violated his probation and sentenced him to 330 days in jail. This appeal ensued…
Mr. Elam’s special conditions he failed to do were as follows:
- You must pay for and complete the Domestic Violence Batterer’s Assessment and the Batterer’s Intervention Treatment Program …
- You shall successfully complete 50 hours of community service, at a rate of 5 hours per … month.
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the lower court finding that the state failed to establish that the defendant could actually afford to pay for the Domestic Batter’s Assessment and classes and because, despite having not complied with the schedule, there was still plenty of time to complete the community service.
Of note, Mr. Elam was violated 34 days into a 24 month period of supervision.
Great case for VOP case law re willfulness.
Eric J Dirga is a small time practicing attorney in Orlando. He primarily helps people with traffic related issues such as DUIs, racing, traffic tickets, and suspended driver’s license.