Court Opinion

ID: 9397078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 15:04:34.468705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.195297
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                                FOURTH DISTRICT

                           GRANVILLE WILLIAMS,
                                Appellant,

                                        v.

                            STATE OF FLORIDA,
                                 Appellee.

                                 No. 4D22-767

                                [May 24, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Stacy M. Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. 00-12637CF10A.

    Matthew J. Conigliaro of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

   Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

    This is a case of first impression regarding a Florida law protecting
human trafficking victims. The defendant appeals an order denying his
amended petition to expunge his criminal record based on that law, section
943.0583, Florida Statutes (2018). He argues the trial court erred in
failing to apply the statutory presumption in favor of expunction. We agree
and reverse.

   In 2001, the defendant pled guilty to one count of trafficking cocaine.1
The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison with credit for 317
days served, followed by three years’ probation as a youthful offender. 2

1 The State explained customs officials stopped the defendant at the Fort
Lauderdale International Airport after arriving on a flight from Jamaica. An
inspector found fourteen pellets in a bottle in his luggage and ten pellets in his
groin area. The defendant had also swallowed ten latex-covered pellets.

2The trafficking charge carried a penalty of up to thirty years in prison and a
$100,000 fine, with a minimum mandatory sentence of seven years.
   Discovery confirmed while the defendant was in Jamaica, adults
approached him and convinced him to be a mule — to transport pellets
into Florida. He was told he would make a lot of money but not that the
pellets contained cocaine.

   The plea hearing transcript further revealed the defendant was
seventeen at the time he committed the offense. He was a high school
senior and had already been accepted into the U.S. Army. While
incarcerated prior to his plea, he obtained a GED certificate. He had no
prior criminal history.

    His attorney asserted two mitigating factors for sentencing: (1) the
defendant was a youthful offender, and (2) he was “acting under the
influence of duress or the domination of another individual.” The
defendant’s mother testified her son was friendly but young and gullible.
He stood before the court on a criminal charge “because some
underhanded person has used him.”

   The State asked the court to sentence the defendant to four years in
prison with two years of community control because:

       [P]eople who use young people in other countries to haul
       drugs into our states, they tell them that even if you get
       caught, nothing bad will happen to you. You’re a juvenile.
       Don’t worry about it.

The trial court required the defendant to plead guilty. The defendant
agreed to do so and admitted knowing he was transporting cocaine.

   •   The Petition

   In 2018, the defendant petitioned to expunge the criminal history
associated with his cocaine trafficking conviction. The petition stated the
defendant had been a minor and a victim of human trafficking as defined
under Florida and federal law.

   The defendant attached a sworn statement attesting to his eligibility for
expunction. His statement gave a detailed account of his life and the
events surrounding his criminal conviction. Specifically, the statement
explained the defendant was born in Jamaica and legally immigrated to
the United States in 1997 as a permanent resident.

   When the cocaine trafficking incident occurred, he was a high school
senior, about to graduate, and had already signed a contract with the

                                     2
United States Army to enter basic training at Fort Jackson. Shortly before
then, a person known to him as a “cousin” invited him on an all-expense
paid trip to Jamaica. He did not know what he was getting into and was
unaware of drug trafficking schemes that used children to transport drugs.

   Once he arrived in Jamaica, he met “Mattic” or “Mattie,” the leader of
the scheme, who demanded he swallow white capsules and return to
Florida, where Mattic’s counterpart would extract them. According to his
statement, the defendant refused at first, but Mattic threatened to kill him
and forced him to comply. He was forced to swallow capsules until he
could not swallow more.

   When he arrived in Fort Lauderdale, he and another carrier were
detained at the airport. The defendant informed customs officials he had
been forced to carry drugs. He then cooperated with federal law
enforcement in the other carrier’s prosecution.

   After his prison sentence and probation were completed, he was re-
sentenced to five years in prison for violating probation. He appealed the
sentence. We requested a status report regarding the defendant’s pending
motion for reconsideration. See Williams v. State, Case No. 4D06-4878
(Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 12, 2007, order). The trial court thereafter granted his
motion for reconsideration and vacated the five-year sentence.

   Despite the defendant’s success in avoiding the re-sentencing, the
Department of Homeland Security deported him to Jamaica. There, he
claims Mattic and others accosted him, physically abused him, and
burglarized his residence in retaliation for his assistance in the other
carrier’s prosecution.

   The sworn statement explained the defendant returned to the United
States years later but was arrested for illegal re-entry. While in federal
detention, he read a book called Slaves Next Door, and he obtained
counseling from a New York organization called Safe Horizon Anti-
Trafficking Unit. Since then, he has tried to rebuild his life.

    The petition also attached a 2013 letter from a case manager with Safe
Horizon. The case manager, who had extensive experience with human
trafficking victims, shared his conclusion that the defendant was indeed a
victim of human trafficking in connection with his cocaine trafficking
offense. The case manager related details not revealed in the 2001 plea
colloquy or in the defendant’2018 sworn statement. For instance, the case
manager stated that, according to the defendant, he was too frightened to

                                     3
ingest the drugs and so hid them in his luggage. The petition characterized
the Safe Horizon letter as official documentation supporting the petition.

   •   The State’s First Response and The Trial Court’s First Order

   The State filed a written objection to the petition. Confusing the human
trafficking victim expunction statute with another statute, the State’s two-
line response argued the defendant was not eligible for expunction because
he had been convicted under section 893.135. The defendant responded
that section 943.0583 identified crimes for which expunction was
unavailable, but a conviction under section 893.135 was not one of them.

   The trial court denied the petition. The trial court quoted section
943.059, Florida Statutes — a statute not invoked by the defendant — as
providing criminal history records under section 893.135 are not eligible
to be sealed.

   •   The Motion for Rehearing

   The defendant promptly moved for rehearing, explaining he requested
human trafficking victim expunction pursuant to section 943.0583, not
section 943.059. By section 943.0583’s plain language, expunction is
available when the statute’s criteria are met, “[n]otwithstanding any other
provision of law . . . .” § 943.0583(2), Fla. Stat. (2018).

   The State attached the transcript from the defendant’s 2001 plea
hearing and claimed those statements were in “stark contrast” to the
sworn statement’s discussion about being threatened and forced to
transport cocaine to Florida. The State claimed the defendant changed his
story after meeting the Safe Horizons counselor. The State claimed the
defendant “had the opportunity to allege duress as a defense back in
2001.”

   The State’s second response argued the defendant had been filing
motions for postconviction relief with no legal basis and claimed this was
another “means to accomplish his desired effect.” The State ignored that
the pro se defendant had successfully appealed his incorrect five-year
sentence imposed after his probation had expired.

   Finally, the State suggested the 2013 Safe Horizon letter did not qualify
as official documentation issued by a federal, state, or local agency. The
State argued, absent official documentation issued by a federal, state, or
local agency tending to show the defendant was a victim of human

                                     4
trafficking, the defendant bore the burden of proving that status by clear
and convincing evidence.

   •   The Amended Petition

   The defendant filed an amended petition, submitting additional
supporting documentation. That documentation included the following:
the 2001 plea hearing’s certified transcript, the July 2000 complaint from
the other carrier’s federal prosecution, and an affidavit from the customs
agent who investigated the other carrier’s arrival from Jamaica on June
28, 2000. The complaint charged the other carrier with importing cocaine,
and the supporting affidavit explained it was the other individual (the
defendant) to whom an airport canine alerted because he had latex-
covered pellets in his pocket and luggage. The defendant told authorities
he was traveling with the other carrier, and investigators eventually
determined the other carrier had swallowed ninety-six latex-covered
pellets of cocaine.

   The second document from the other carrier’s federal prosecution
explained that he was to be paid $3,300 for transporting the cocaine. He
identified the supplier in Jamaica as someone named “Matt.”

   The other carrier’s prosecution documents corroborated the statements
made at the defendant’s plea hearing, his statements to Safe Horizon in
2013, and his 2018 sworn statement. Among other things, the other
carrier’s documents supported the pair were paid couriers and that
authorities caught them after the defendant would not swallow all the
latex-covered capsules. The narcotics canine alerted to capsules in his
luggage and his pants pocket.

   •   The Hearing

   A new trial court heard the amended petition and the rehearing motion
directed at the prior court’s order denying relief. At the outset, the trial
court acknowledged the prior denial was in error and that a new hearing
should be held. The trial court took judicial notice of the five exhibits
attached to the petitions and accepted the exhibits into evidence.

   For both the original and amended petitions, the defendant argued he
presented official documentation issued by a federal, state, or local agency,
tending to show he was a human trafficking victim. Doing so created a
presumption in his favor, and nothing overcame it. He argued that, even
without the presumption, he had been a minor who was exploited by drug
traffickers.

                                     5
   The State responded the Safe Horizons letter was not official
documentation under the statute. The State did not argue the hearing
transcript was not official documentation. The State also argued the
defendant’s statements were inconsistent. The plea hearing statements
focused on making money, whereas the more recent statements focused
on being forced to carry drugs.

    The State emphasized the defendant brought the drugs into the country
to make money; he was not a victim of human trafficking. The State
argued bringing drugs to Florida on a plane was not labor. But, under the
human trafficking victim expunction statute, coercion is not a required
element for someone under 18, and labor simply means work of economic
or financial value.

   •   The Trial Court’s Ruling

   The trial court denied the amended petition. The trial court found the
defendant was not entitled to relief because his “rendition of events
lack[ed] credibility due to a considerable lack of consistency” between the
statements presented at the plea hearing and his amended petition. The
order was silent as to the statutory presumption.

   From this order, the defendant now appeals.

    We review an order denying a petition to expunge criminal history for
an abuse of discretion. M.G. v. State, 260 So. 3d 1094, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA
2018). However, we review a trial court’s statutory interpretation de novo.
Id.

   Florida has long authorized expunction of criminal history records
under various circumstances but did not adopt a human trafficking victim
expunction statute until 2013. See ch. 2013-98, § 2, Laws of Fla. (2013).
Section 943.0583 took effect on January 1, 2014, over 12 years after the
defendant pled guilty.

   •   Section 943.0583

    The preamble to chapter 2013-98, Laws of Florida (2013), states
“victims of trafficking may be forced to engage in a variety of illegal acts
beyond prostitution” and “trafficked persons have not always been
recognized as victims by the police and prosecutors and plead guilty or do
not understand the consequences of criminal charges.” Id. (preamble). In
companion legislation, the legislature additionally found: “Persons who

                                     6
are victims of human trafficking and who have been convicted of crimes
committed at the behest of their traffickers are themselves victims of
crimes.” Ch. 2013-99, § 2, Laws of Fla. (2013).

   Section 943.0583 offers three definitions of who is a “victim of human
trafficking:”

   •   a person subjected to coercion, as defined in s. 787.06, for the
       purpose of being used in human trafficking

   •   a child under 18 years of age subjected to human trafficking, or

   •   an individual subjected to human trafficking as defined by federal
       law.

§ 943.0583(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018). “Human trafficking” is given the same
meaning as provided in section 787.06. § 943.0583(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018).
The term means:

       transporting, soliciting, recruiting, harboring, providing,
       enticing, maintaining, purchasing, patronizing, procuring, or
       obtaining another person for the purpose of exploitation of
       that person.

§ 787.06(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2018).

   A person may petition the appropriate circuit court to expunge the
criminal history record of a victim of human trafficking who complies with
the statute. § 943.0583(2), Fla. Stat. (2018).        A petition must be
accompanied by the petitioner’s sworn statement. Id. (6)(a).

    A petition may also be accompanied by “[o]fficial documentation of the
victim’s status,” which “creates a presumption that his or her participation
in the offense was a result of having been a victim of human trafficking . .
. .” Id. “Official documentation” means “any documentation issued by a
federal, state, or local agency tending to show a person’s status as a victim
of human trafficking.” Id. (1)(b).

   In such instances, the court should determine the petition based on
the preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. (3). But if a petition is
not accompanied by official documentation of victim status, then a
determination on the petition must be made by a showing of clear and
convincing evidence. Id. (5).

                                     7
    Section 943.0583 imposes a presumption of human trafficking victim
status upon the presentation of certain documentation, and it offers broad
relief to those who have been victimized, particularly minors. Official
documentation is defined to mean “any documentation issued by a federal,
state, or local agency tending to show a person’s status as a victim of
human trafficking.” Id. (1)(b).

   Here, the defendant presented the requisite documentation entitling
him to the statutory presumption. The 2001 plea hearing transcript was
documentation issued by a state or local agency that showed the defendant
was a victim of human trafficking.

   In fact, the prosecutor at the plea hearing expressly embraced the
theory the defendant had been recruited and told he would not be
punished because he was a child. The State sought a significant prison
sentence just for the purpose of sending a message not to use children to
bring drugs into the state.

    The trial court failed to afford the defendant the statutory presumption
to which he was entitled. And, although his two descriptions of what
happened at the 2001 plea hearing and in his 2018 sworn statement were
not identical, they did not conflict. At the plea hearing, defense counsel
specifically asked the court to consider the defendant committed the
offense under duress or domination of another individual. That is entirely
consistent with his more detailed explanation of the events giving rise to
his charges.

   In Baker v. State, 53 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the First District
addressed section 943.0585, which authorizes expungement or sealing of
criminal history records. The First District held that while that statute
does not create a right to the expunction of any criminal history record,
satisfaction of the statutory criteria creates a presumption in favor of
expunction, upon which a trial court abuses its discretion in denying an
expungement petition without a factual basis to do so. Id. at 1148; see
also Harmon v. State, 12 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

    Here, the trial court’s decision rested on its determination the
defendant was not credible. Yet, no reasonable review of this record
negates the defendant’s claim that he had participated in the trafficking
offense as a human trafficking victim. The predicate for the defendant’s
plea and his requests for sentencing leniency was his status as a minor
who had failed to appreciate the seriousness of his actions and acted under
duress.

                                     8
    Even if an actual inconsistency existed, it would be of no moment.
Section 943.0583 clearly provides that coercion is not required where the
person is under 18 years of age. § 943.0583(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018).
Because the defendant was a minor at the time, he would qualify as a
victim of human trafficking regardless of whether he was coerced to do so.
An inconsistency over a non-material fact does not rebut the presumption
of human trafficking and entitlement to expunction of his criminal records.

   The trial court abused its discretion by failing to afford the defendant
the statutory presumption and by finding a conflict where none existed.
We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration and
application of the statutory presumption.

   Reversed and Remanded.

CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                           *         *        *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                    9