Court Opinion

ID: 9950171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 15:05:21.657014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:58.475207
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                          MARCO CADEJUSTE,
                              Appellant,

                                     v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                             No. 4D2023-0224

                             [March 13, 2024]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie County; Robert L. Pegg, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562022CF001079A.

  Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

  Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J.
Concepcion, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for
appellee.

LEVINE, J.

    Appellant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder with a
weapon and attempted second-degree murder with a weapon after
representing himself at trial. Appellant now appeals his convictions and
sentences raising eight issues: (1) the trial court erred in its rulings
regarding appellant’s efforts to impeach the state’s fact witnesses, (2) the
trial court erred in ruling that appellant could not comment on the fact
that the state had not introduced body camera videos in evidence, (3) the
trial court erred in allowing the state to argue that the substance of the
videos was inadmissible hearsay, (4) the trial court erred in sustaining the
state’s objection to appellant’s statement to the jury that he sought to have
the state perform DNA testing on the screwdriver, (5) the trial court erred
in overruling appellant’s discovery objection, (6) appellant’s PRR sentences
were illegal, (7) appellant was improperly convicted by a six-person jury in
violation of the due process and jury clauses of the federal constitution,
and (8) the costs of investigation were illegally imposed.
    Initially, we observe that this case illustrates the potential dangers of
self-representation. Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2002) (“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that
apply to counsel.”); Walker v. Estate of Yee, 376 So. 3d 758, 758 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2024). Almost all of the issues appellant raises were not properly
preserved for appellate review, and the few issues that were preserved are
either not error or were harmless error.

    Thus, we affirm on all issues without further comment, except the last
issue. As to that issue, we reverse the imposition of investigative costs
which were never requested by the state at sentencing. The state concedes
error. Boesch v. State, 368 So. 3d 454, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“Before
a trial court can impose investigative costs, the defendant must be
convicted of a crime and the investigative agency must request them.”).
The state cannot request investigative costs on remand. Richards v. State,
288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 2020). “On remand, the trial court shall ‘enter
an amended judgment and sentence that strikes or deletes the
investigative costs, without the State being entitled to have these costs
reimposed.’” Beauford v. State, 375 So. 3d 923, 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
(citation omitted). As such, we remand for the trial court to strike the
investigative costs.

   Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

WARNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

                            *        *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     2