CLARENCE F. STEPHENSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A traffic stop was valid, evidence was properly admitted under the plain view doctrine, Miranda warnings were given before incriminating statements, a six-member jury is constitutional, and mandatory statutory fines are not unconstitutionally excessive.
[1] Introduction of a statement obtained in violation of Miranda rights constitutes harmless error when other incriminating statements were properly obtained after Miranda wa…
[2] Mandatory statutory fines prescribed by statute for drug trafficking offenses are not unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephenson was stopped in a traffic stop during which an officer observed a container with illicit drugs in plain view. He was convicted of possession…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excessive Fines Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
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 sixmember 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.
2
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.