Court Opinion

ID: 9556215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 16:06:21.749371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:59.030801
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 16, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            No. 3D22-1120
         Lower Tribunal Nos. F18-10624, F18-10617, F18-10642

                           Maurice Jackson,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L.
Fernandez, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.

     FERNANDEZ, J.
      Maurice Jackson appeals the trial court’s order revoking probation and

imposing a life sentence claiming that the trial court considering an

uncharged violation. Jackson additionally claims, and the State concedes,

that the trial court's written order does not conform to the court’s oral

pronouncement. Because it is clear from the record that the trial court would

have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence despite the

consideration of the uncharged offense, we affirm in part the order revoking

probation and imposing a life sentence. We reverse in part and remand only

to allow the trial court to conform the order to its oral pronouncement without

inclusion of the uncharged violation.

      Towards the end of an extensive revocation of probation hearing, the

trial court asked to see defendant Maurice Jackson’s prior record. The State

provided an electronic copy and explained that it included the most recent

arrest from the day before that had not been included in the affidavit. The

discussion of the uncharged violation was brief, including where the incident

occurred and the parties involved. Immediately before revoking probation

and sentencing, the trial court announced:

      Battery. Battery. Battery. Battery. Battery. Probation violation.
      Robbery with a firearm. Robbery with a firearm. False
      imprisonment. Aggravated battery. Probation violation. Probation
      violation. Battery. Battery.
                                     …

                                        2
     Okay. I'll tell you that I find that Mr. Jackson is an extreme danger,
     not just to his family but to the community. He's violent, his priors
     show it. He's on probation for violence and yesterday he
     battered. I'm assuming he was charged with that battery on
     police on law enforcement.

The State confirmed. The trial court revoked probation and imposed the

following sentence:

     So, on F1810617, I'm going to find him in violation of probation,
     revoke his probation, sentence him to ten years in state prison
     as a habitual offender. In case F1810624, the charge of battery
     on the elderly, ten years as a habitual offender. Count, I guess
     it's III, grand theft vehicle, ten years as a habitual offender. Count
     IV, aggravated battery on the elderly, life in state prison as a
     habitual offender. Count V, battery with prior convictions ten
     years, as a habitual offender. In F1810642 Count I, battery on
     the elderly, ten years as a habitual offender. Count II, battery with
     prior convictions, ten years as a habitual offender, and tampering
     with a witness or victim on a third-degree felony, 30 years as a
     habitual offender. All cases and all counts will run concurrent with
     each other. You'll receive credit for all time that you've served.
     That applies to each case.

The defense failed to object to the trial court’s sentence. Jackson filed a

Motion to Correct Sentencing Error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.800(b)(2) arguing that the written order of revocation did not

conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. The trial court did not rule

on the motion. Jackson appealed.

     Both Jackson and the State agree that the trial court erroneously relied

on the uncharged violation in revoking Jackson’s probation; however, the

State argues that this error does not require reversal. “Revocation of

                                       3
probation based on an uncharged violation deprives the defendant of due

process and constitutes fundamental error.” Cohen v. State, 171 So. 3d 179,

181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citing Bonner v. State, 138 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2014); McRae v. State, 88 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Ray v. State,

855 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). “When probation has been revoked

based on charged and uncharged conduct, the revocation order must be

reversed where it is unclear whether the lower court would have revoked

probation and imposed the same sentence absent the uncharged conduct.”

Id. (citing Mack v. State, 440 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)).

     It is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked

probation and imposed the same sentence despite consideration of the

additional uncharged offense. Prior to the discussion of the uncharged

offense, the trial court announced that there was enough evidence to revoke

probation. Also, before mention of the uncharged offense, the transcript

reveals discussion of the maximum sentences, including a life sentence for

aggravated battery on Jackson’s father resulting in a broken arm, and

discussion of the prior determination that Jackson is a habitual offender and

a habitual violent offender but was not previously sentenced as such.

Additionally, when Jackson addressed the trial court regarding battering his

father, he showed a lack of remorse and claimed the battery was

                                     4
unintentional. The trial judge was evidently bothered by such blatant

disregard.1 This colloquy also took place prior to the discussion of the

uncharged violation.

      The record is clear that the recent uncharged violation was introduced

only to inform the trial court of its presence on Jackson’s list of priors. The

trial court briefly asked for some context and the conversation quickly moved

on to Jackson’s more serious offenses. The context of the discussion is

similar to that of Cohen, 171 So. 3d 179. In Cohen, the State prosecuted the

defendant and introduced evidence that Cohen made an obscene phone call

in violation of his probation. The State introduced additional evidence of an

uncharged crime to the effect that the defendant made ten (10) additional

calls to the same number, none of which were answered. However, the State

did not argue the uncharged violation, but instead the issues turned to “the

seriousness of the crimes for which Cohen was originally sentenced (sexual

battery upon a helpless victim and burglary with a battery); his mercurial

1
 We are aware of our long history of cases concluding that the trial court is
not permitted to consider a defendant’s lack of remorse when imposing
sentence. See, e.g., Stone v. State, 249 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
However, the First District held in Davis v. State, 268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2019), approved, 332 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 2021), that consideration of a
defendant’s lack of remorse during sentencing is appropriate. The Florida
Supreme Court affirmed that holding in Davis v. State, 332 So. 3d 970 (Fla.
2021), reh’g denied, SC19-716, 2022 WL 122299 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2022).

                                      5
history of community control supervision; his mental health and treatment

history; and the significant number and serious nature of Cohen's prior felony

convictions.” Id. at 180-81. As in the present case, the trial court included the

uncharged offense in its oral pronouncement of revocation of probation. On

appeal, this Court found that it was clear from the record that the trial court

would have revoked Cohen’s probation and imposed the same sentence

solely on the charged violation. Given the analogous record in Cohen and

our decision in that case, we find that it is clear from the record that the trial

court would have revoked Jackson’s probation and imposed the same

sentence based solely on the charged violations. We therefore affirm the

order revoking probation and the sentences imposed.

      The State concedes that the trial court’s written order does not conform

to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. “Accordingly, we [reverse and]

remand to the trial court only to correct the revocation order to reflect that

Appellant violated his probation by committing the offenses [provided in the

court’s oral pronouncement].” Ware v. State, 54 So. 3d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2011).

      For the reasons stated, we affirm in part the trial court’s order revoking

Jackson’s probation and imposing sentence and reverse in part and remand

                                        6
only for the trial court to conform the written order to the oral pronouncement

without inclusion of the uncharged violation.

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

                                      7