3rd DCA ROUNDUP

After a brief pause, we return with relish to our examination of the the cases that make us tick. 

In Mathis v. State, Judge Ramirez, who's getting better and better as he gets older, puts the legal kibosh on Judge Areces's denial of a motion to suppress. In Mathis, the court held that an informant's tip that describes where an individual is selling drugs, and what that individual looks like, but does not contain how the informant knows the individual is actually selling drugs, (meaning the tip does does fully describe the manner of selling drugs, and what drugs are being sold) is not sufficient to provide an officer probable cause to stop and search. 

PD's office 1-Areces 0. 

In KH v. State, the court found the evidence was legally insufficient to justify a conviction for battery on a police officer. In KH, officer "Friendly" saw KH looking into the window of a truck. The officer went to investigate at the precise moment KH decided it was time for his afternoon run. KH ran, the officer grabbed him, and KH gave him a shove. The 3rd DCA held that since the evidence was legally insufficient for a loitering and prowling charge, the officer was not acting in lawful performance of his duties, and as such the conviction for battery on a LEO cannot stand. The case was remanded for a reduction of charges to simple battery.  

PD's office 2- AG's 0.     

Kudos to Judge Tunis for reading the blog and attaching reasons to her denial of the defendant's rule 3.850. As such, Judge Rothenberg affirmed the denial with pleasure in Ross v State. Now, see how easy that was?   

But not for Judge Marisa Tinkler Mendez, who makes a repeat appearance on the wall of shame for not attaching portions of the record in the denial of the rule 3 motion in State v. Mattison. 

 Judge Orlando Prescott joins Tinkler-Mendez on the wall of shame for the same reasons in Kerr v. State. 

Judges Tinkler-Mendez and Prescott:  call Judge Tunis, she knows how it's done. 

And finally, in Sabnani v. State, the 3rd DCA reluctantly reversed Judge Scola. In Sabnani, the Defendant averred that his plea should be vacated because he was not warned of immigration consequences. A transcript of the plea could not be located, but the state did find a transcript of a subsequent PVH plea in which the Defendant was warned of the immigration consequences. On that basis Judge Scola denied the motion to withdraw the plea. However, the 3rd DCA has recently held that the existence of an independent warning in a subsequent hearing does not cure the original and defective plea.  

Well that wraps up another edition of Paul and Young Ron's "You Can't Win"....woops..we mean 3rd DCA Roundup.