Jon Paul Hogle v. State of Florida
250 So. 3d 178
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jon Hogle was convicted of lewd or lascivious exhibition after a 13‑year‑old jogging on a beach saw him on a condo balcony with his pants down and touching his erect penis; she and her sister later identified him as driving by and police arrested him.
- At trial Hogle denied the conduct to police but testified he briefly flashed his genitals as a joking reciprocal gesture after an adult friend flashed her breasts; he denied touching himself or seeing children nearby.
- The jury convicted Hogle; the trial court sentenced him to five years’ prison and ten years’ sex‑offender probation and imposed assorted fines and costs (oral lump sum plus a written judgment listing specific statutory charges).
- On appeal Hogle challenged (1) admission of testimony that he drove by the victim’s condo after the incident, (2) prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument as shifting burden/misstating law, and (3) the imposition of several fines and costs at sentencing.
- The First DCA affirmed the conviction (rejecting evidentiary and prosecutorial‑error claims) but reversed and remanded for resentencing because five imposed fines/costs were improper or lacked required findings/evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Hogle's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony that Hogle drove by the condo after the incident | Irrelevant to criminality; if relevant, unfairly prejudicial | Testimony was relevant to identity and not substantially more prejudicial than probative | Admission was proper; no abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument | Comments shifted burden and misstated the law (fundamental error) | Prosecutor responded to defense attack on victim credibility; law properly stated and jury instructed on reasonable doubt | No fundamental error; argument permissible rebuttal |
| Legality of specific fines/costs (e.g., misdemeanor court costs, section 775.083 fine and surcharge) | Several fines/costs were improperly imposed without statutory basis or specific pronouncement | State conceded some fines lacked proper pronouncement/evidence and could be stricken or reimposed after proper procedure | Reversed as to five fees/costs; two others affirmed; remand for resentencing/hearing on costs as needed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support Hogle’s defense theory (credibility issue) | Defense: only Hogle testified to mutual joking flash; victim’s credibility attacked | State: victim’s testimony corroborated and jury decides credibility | Jury verdict stands; credibility issues were for jury to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660 (trial court has broad discretion on relevance)
- Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304 (standard for reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial error: fundamental error)
- Carter v. State, 23 So. 3d 1238 (testimony about defendant’s movements relevant to identity)
- Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181 (prosecutor may not comment to shift burden by noting defendant failed to produce evidence)
- Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639 (prosecutor may argue credibility and reasonable inferences in rebuttal)
- Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (section 775.083 fine is discretionary and must be pronounced at sentencing)
- Chambers v. State, 217 So. 3d 210 (public defender fee above minimum requires factual findings)
- Brown v. State, 189 So. 3d 837 (state must present competent substantial evidence to support prosecution costs)