Ferrari v. State, 4D14-464
Decision Date | 21 November 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 4D14-464,4D14-464 |
Citation | 260 So.3d 295 |
Parties | Anthony FERRARI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We grant the State's motion for rehearing, vacate our prior opinion, and substitute the following in its place.
In this appeal from his conviction for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, appellant raises multiple issues. We find two require reversal. First, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress historical cell-site location information (CSLI). In Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 2217, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018), the United States Supreme Court held that accessing historical cell phone location information constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant and probable cause. Here, because the state acquired the CSLI without a warrant issued on probable cause, the court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Second, the court held that a mid-trial revelation of discovery that the State failed to disclose did not amount to a Richardson1 violation. We hold that the State's failure to comply with its obligations under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, by neglecting to disclose the substance of a codefendant's statements as well as the existence of exculpatory statements by another witness, constituted a discovery violation. On these grounds we reverse and remand for a new trial.
In 2005, the State charged appellant Anthony Ferrari, along with his codefendants Anthony Moscatiello and James Fiorillo, with the 2001 murder of Gus Boulis. Fiorillo pled to the charges in 2012, and a trial involving Moscatiello and Ferrari commenced in 2013. Moscatiello's attorney became ill during trial, and his trial was severed. Trial continued against Ferrari. Moscatiello was later tried, convicted, and sentenced upon the same essential testimony as was presented in the trial of Ferrari. Moscatiello appealed, and this court reversed his conviction for a new trial. Moscatiello v. State , 247 So.3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). In our opinion, we extensively recited the facts, which are the essential facts of this appeal as well. We therefore repeat those facts for this opinion. We also add facts specifically relevant to Ferrari's trial. Furthermore, we will discuss additional facts within the issues to which they are relevant.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Potts
...or the presiding judge's order—only on prevailing appellate precedent at the time.¶ 153 Defendant's own citation, Ferrari v. State , 260 So. 3d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018), illustrates our point. In that case, the Florida appellate court held that an officer who collected CSLI by means o......
-
Howard v. State
...at trial. See also Urbaniak, 241 So. 3d at 966 (explaining that Hoggins and Horwitz stand for these propositions); Ferrari v. State, 260 So. 3d 295, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (same). Silence is inconsistent with a defendant's exculpatory trial testimony in circumstances where, giving due cons......
-
Smith v. State
...was required, we see no conceivable prejudice to Appellant with respect to his trial preparation or strategy. See Ferrari v. State , 260 So. 3d 295, 311-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ("[A] discovery violation is subject to a harmless error analysis. A Richardson violation is harmless error only if......
-
Kalivretenos v. State
...to "comment on a defendant's postarrest silence." State v. Hoggins , 718 So. 2d 761, 769 (Fla. 1998) ; accord Ferrari v. State , 260 So. 3d 295, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). This applies "to all evidence and argument, including impeachment evidence and argument, that [is] fairly susceptible of ......