Allen v. State

• Decision Date: 04 January 2017
• Docket Number: No. 4D15–2574,4D15–2574
• Citation: 211 So.3d 48
• Parties: Michael W. ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

211 So.3d 48

Michael W. ALLEN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D15–2574

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 4, 2017]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez–Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Klingensmith, J.

Michael Allen ("appellant") appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, and consequent prison sentence. Appellant alleges the court erred in finding that he violated his probation, and then violated his constitutional rights at sentencing when it required him to make an admission of guilt in exchange for a reduced sentence. Although there was sufficient evidence to support the court's finding of a probation violation, we agree with appellant that his constitutional rights were violated during sentencing and reverse for a new sentencing hearing.

Following a motor vehicle accident, appellant was observed sitting in the driver's seat of a car that crashed into a van. He was then observed exiting the car and walking away from the scene. Five minutes later, however, appellant was seen returning to his car and attempting to start it. After it failed to start, witnesses saw appellant exit the car and start to run, but bystanders detained him until police arrived.

Following this incident, the State filed a probation violation affidavit against appellant, claiming that he violated his probation by committing the criminal offense of DUI, refusing to submit to a DUI test, leaving the scene of a crash involving damage to property, and driving with a suspended license as a habitual traffic offender.

At the probation revocation hearing, a witness identified appellant as the same person she saw exiting the driver's seat of the car after it crashed into her neighbor's van. She testified that appellant was the only person sitting inside the car. Two police officers who later arrived on scene testified that they found appellant sweating profusely, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were glassy. A bottle of whiskey was found in the backseat of appellant's car, and one officer noted that appellant had the odor of alcohol on his breath. That officer further testified that appellant's normal faculties were impaired and he refused to submit to field sobriety exercises.

Appellant testified that his friend was driving the car and he was only a passenger when it crashed. He stated he could not open his door after the crash, so he waited and then exited the car through the driver's side door before walking around. This is when, according to appellant, the bystanders started asking him questions until the police arrived. Appellant admitted that he smoked marijuana the night of the crash, but steadfastly denied he was the person driving the car.

211 So.3d 51

Based on the testimony and evidence, the trial court found that appellant violated his probation. Then, as the court considered appellant's sentencing, the following exchanges occurred:

THE COURT: Mr. Allen, I'm just telling you straight up right now. I'm going to max you out to the most it can be unless you tell me the truth right now . Run your mouth real well. You're are [sic] very articulate.

One of the smartest most articulate defendants I've seen here in six months. You know how to spin a phrase, you know how to speak better than most lawyers in this courtroom. I've been listening. I have never seen anybody go toe to toe with [the prosecutor] as well [sic] you did.

Now, he scored a lot of points against you, but the fact of the matter is, you are a cool cucumber under pressure, and you know how to run your mouth. You're articulate. You're smart.

I'm telling you straight up, I'm going to max you out unless you tell me the truth. I'm not going to max you out if you come clean right now.

[COUNSEL]: Your Honor, before we get into that, may I just have a word with my client?

THE COURT: If he comes clean with me I'm going to shave some time off.

[COUNSEL]: I just want to explain the consequences of this.

THE COURT: I think he's a smart man. You can do it, but he heard me straight up.

[COUNSEL]: Understood.

THE COURT: [Counsel], I don't want you to have to sell him on anything. This has to be from his heart and he's got to tell the truth. I want him to come clean. He comes clean, I'm going to shave some time off.

[COUNSEL]: I was just explaining the consequences for purposes of appeal if, for whatever reason he does admit to this. The different consequences.

[APPELLANT]: Your Honor, may I ask a question? Admitting to driving or driving under the influence.

[THE COURT]: I want the truth out of you, sir. If you testify to the truth right now. The truth is you were driving that car.

And you know you are in violation and you messed up. You relapsed on alcohol and pot. You were driving a car without a license.

The best is you're doing your level best to try to weasel out of this. Just tell the truth about that. If you do, that's your AA, 12 step program is the honesty program. It's all about that. Tell the truth about that. And that's my—in my way of thinking that's worth something.

But if —so this is your last chance to have any kind of mitigation at all. You don't have to do it. [Counsel] is right.

You can continue to beat that innocent drum and take an appeal, or you can admit now and tell the truth. And I'm going to shave some time off. I don't know how much.

[APPELLANT]: May I please —

THE COURT: Not if you are going to piss on me and tell me it's raining. I want the truth out of you.

[APPELLANT]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Or say nothing.

[APPELLANT]: Yes, Your Honor. May I speak now?

THE COURT: One or the other.

....

211 So.3d 52

THE COURT: Just say the truth. The truth

...