Court Opinion

ID: 9945725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 15:04:14.854342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:38.520017
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 28, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1593
                       Lower Tribunal No. M21-6863
                           ________________

                          Eleazar Neri Aviles,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                          The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Eleane
Sosa-Bruzon, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather NcNab, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

     LINDSEY, J.
        Appellant Eleazar Neri Aviles (Defendant below) appeals a final

judgment of conviction and sentence. Aviles was charged with one count of

violating a domestic violence injunction pursuant to section 741.31(4)(a),

Florida Statutes (2023). The issue before us is whether the trial court abused

its discretion when it allowed the State to introduce evidence related to a

broken car window. Finding that it did not, we affirm.

        Aviles was previously in a relationship with Martha Francisco. The

relationship did not end amicably. As a result, Francisco applied for a

domestic violence injunction, which the trial court entered in early March

2021.

        Later that month, on the evening of March 12, 2021, Francisco arrived

home to find Aviles in the community parking lot of her residence. According

to her testimony at trial, Francisco was unsure if Aviles had received notice

of the injunction, so she called the police. Two Homestead police officers

responded and served Aviles with the injunction. The officers learned that

the car Aviles was driving was registered under Francisco’s name, so they

took the car keys away from Aviles and gave them to Francisco. Aviles

remained in the apartment parking lot for a while and then walked to a nearby

gas station.

        An hour or two later, Aviles returned to the parking lot at Francisco’s

residence. According to Francisco’s testimony, Aviles was intoxicated and

                                       2
upset because the police had taken the car keys. Aviles then broke the car

window.    Francisco again called the police, and they returned to her

apartment. Aviles told the police that he was waiting for his mother to come

pick him up and that he had been hanging out with friends and drinking.

Aviles was arrested. A jury found Aviles guilty of violating the injunction, and

he was sentenced to twelve months of probation.

      The standard of review for determining whether the trial court erred in

admitting evidence is abuse of discretion. Jeanbart v. State, 299 So. 3d 3,

7 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). “Discretion is abused only when the judicial action is

arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that

discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view

adopted by the trial court.” White v. State, 817 So. 2d 799, 806 (Fla. 2002).

Moreover, “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.”

§ 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2023). Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence

tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2023).

      Here, Aviles claims that the evidence of the broken car window was

“evidence of an uncharged crime” and therefore, irrelevant, and prejudicial

to Aviles’s case. We disagree.

      “Evidence of bad acts not included in the charged offenses is generally

referred to as ‘collateral crimes evidence.’” Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d

1207, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).          Collateral crimes evidence may be

                                       3
admissible if it is inextricably intertwined with the charged offense and

therefore relevant to prove that offense. Id. at 1213.

      As we explained in Dorsett,

            Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is
            necessary to (1) adequately describe the deed; (2)
            provide an intelligent account of the crime(s)
            charged; (3) establish the entire context out of which
            the charged crime(s) arose; or (4) adequately
            describe the events leading up to the charged
            crime(s).

Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis removed).

      In this case, the evidence of the broken car window helped establish

the entire context out of which the charged crime, violation of a domestic

violence injunction, occurred and further helped to describe the events

leading up to the violation. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Affirmed.

                                      4