Court Opinion

ID: 9408347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 15:06:30.923367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.384891
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                      CLARENCE F. STEPHENSON,
                             Appellant,

                                     v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                               No. 4D22-291

                              [July 12, 2023]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-CF-
005431-AXXXX-MB.

   Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Cynthia L. Anderson,
Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

   Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for various counts of
possession and trafficking in several different drugs. Appellant contends
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence
and statements obtained during the traffic stop which led to the discovery
of drugs. We find competent substantial evidence to support the trial
court’s conclusions that the stop was valid, the officer observed a container
containing illicit drugs in plain view after approaching the vehicle, and
appellant’s incriminating statements were obtained after he was read his
Miranda rights. While one admission was obtained before appellant was
read his Miranda rights, its introduction into evidence was harmless error.

    Appellant also claims that he was unconstitutionally tried by a six-
member jury instead of a twelve-member jury. We have previously rejected
this argument in Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022),
rev. denied, No. SC22-1597, 2023 WL 3830251 (Fla. June 6, 2023). We
likewise reject the claim in this case.
    Additionally, Appellant challenges the $210,000 in mandatory
statutory fines assessed against him as unconstitutionally excessive. 1 We
conclude that the fines are not unconstitutional. See Gordon v. State, 139
So. 3d 958, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We do agree with appellant’s claim
that the order assessing costs and fines incorrectly lists $52,500 as a
discretionary fine when this was a mandatory fine. We remand for the
trial court to correct this scrivener’s error. See Bryant v. State, 301 So. 3d
352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Appellant need not be present for the
correction. Id.

    Affirmed, but remanded to correct a scrivener’s error in sentence.

WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

                              *          *          *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 See § 893.135(1)(f)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2018) (a person who traffics between fourteen
and twenty-eight grams of amphetamines “shall be ordered to pay a fine of
$50,000”); § 893.135(1)(k)2.a., Fla. Stat. (2018) (a person who traffics between
ten and two-hundred grams of phenethylamines “shall be ordered to pay a fine
of $50,000”); § 893.135(1)(c)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2018) (a person who traffics between
fourteen and twenty-eight grams of morphine “shall be ordered to pay a fine of
$100,000”); and § 938.04, Fla. Stat. (2018) (“In addition to any fine for any
criminal offense prescribed by law, including a criminal traffic offense . . . there
is hereby established and created as a court cost an additional 5-percent
surcharge thereon which shall be imposed[.]”)

                                         2