Romans v. State

Decision Date31 May 2017
Docket NumberNo. 4D14–4817,4D14–4817
Citation221 So.3d 647
Parties Matthew ROMANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

221 So.3d 647

Matthew ROMANS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D14–4817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2017]


Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Zainabu Rumala, Nora Gay, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Levine, J.

In this appeal, appellant claims the trial court erred in (1) excluding a character witness from appellant's workplace, (2) not instructing the jury on justifiable use of deadly force, (3) denying a motion for downward departure, and (4) imposing drug offender probation. We affirm the first two issues. As to the third issue, which raised two grounds for departure, we reverse as to one ground and remand for resentencing, and we affirm as to the other ground. Finally, we reverse the last issue with directions.

Appellant and the victim were at a bar when appellant confronted the victim about an incident involving appellant's girlfriend. Appellant became belligerent, threatened the victim, and cursed at him. The victim moved to the other end of the bar. Appellant walked past the victim two times and pushed him both times. Appellant then left the bar.

The victim stayed in the bar for another thirty or forty-five minutes before leaving. As he walked towards his car, appellant accosted the victim and punched him in the face. Appellant repeatedly punched the victim, causing him to fall, and continued to punch the victim while he was on the ground. The victim begged appellant to stop. The victim never threw a punch and did not do anything except try to stop the attack. After appellant left, the victim managed to drag himself back into the bar. The victim was taken by ambulance to the hospital. As a result of the attack, the victim sustained fractured orbital sockets, torn cartilage on three ribs, and a broken tooth, and was beaten so badly that blood came out of his ears.

Appellant testified in his defense that the victim struck him in the face without provocation, causing appellant to fall. Appellant and the victim rolled around on the ground, and appellant hit the victim "a couple of times."

The defense attempted to present testimony of a character witness from appellant's work who would testify to appellant's reputation for peacefulness in the community. The state argued the witness did not meet the foundation for reputation testimony because the witness knew appellant only in the workplace and did not know appellant's general reputation in the community. The trial court agreed and excluded the testimony as not sufficiently broad-based.

The trial court instructed the jury on the defense of the justified use of non-deadly force. The jury found appellant guilty as charged of aggravated battery.

Appellant moved for a downward departure sentence on the ground that the offense was committed in an unsophisticated

221 So.3d 650

manner and was an isolated incident for which he had shown remorse. The trial court found that the offense was an isolated incident and that appellant was remorseful. However, the court found that the victim's injuries demonstrated that this was not an unsophisticated crime. Specifically, the court stated:

However, I wanted to look at these pictures again, because these pictures clearly demonstrate—they are in evidence—that this was not an unsophisticated crime.

The [victim's] orbital socket was damaged, like he said.

I'm not going to go through his injuries, because he testified and he testified in court. These are evidence and they will be part of the sentencing today.

I do not find the beating this man got to be an unsophisticated crime.

Also, that he was left in the parking lot, and luckily he made his way back to the bar, and luckily the woman, that was the manager or owner of the bar, saw this gentleman and said, oh, my gosh, what happened to you, and then he got help, because clearly he could have died out there. So I do not find that prong has been met.

Appellant also sought a downward departure on the basis that he cooperated with the state to resolve another offense. A prosecutor in a separate criminal matter involving a different defendant testified that appellant cooperated with him, but admitted that appellant's assistance did not solve the case. The trial court, citing State v. Knox , 990 So.2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), stated that in order to depart on this ground, it needed the testimony of "law enforcement." The trial court further stated that even assuming it could depart, the court did not find it should depart.

The trial court sentenced appellant to eight years in prison followed by three years of drug offender probation. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant filed a motion to correct sentencing error, arguing that the trial court was not statutorily authorized to sentence him to drug offender probation. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
2 books & journal articles
  • Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 30 Abril 2021
    ...from introducing evidence of defendant’s peacefulness because testimony of co-worker was not sufficiently broad-based. Romans v. State, 221 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) When, throughout the trial, the defendant had contested the credibility of the victim, noting her delay in reporting any......
  • Judgment and sentence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 Abril 2021
    ...Error to place defendant on drug offender probation where defendant did not commit qualifying offense under 948.20(1). Romans v. State, 221 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) Trial court erred when it used more than one sentencing scoresheet to calculate defendant’s sentence on a violation of p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT