Maestas v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18981
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Maestas was convicted of possession of a controlled substance under section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), and sentenced to 27.3 months in prison.
- Post-conviction, the trial court imposed a $100 cost of prosecution fee, a $400 public defender fee, and a $25 additional fee without oral in-court pronouncement.
- Maestas appealed, challenging (i) an impeachment ruling, (ii) the imposed costs/fees, and (iii) the facial constitutionality of section 893.13.
- The court affirmed the impeachment ruling, found merit to the costs/fees issue, and addressed the constitutionality challenge.
- The court remanded to reduce the public defender fee to $100 or conduct a hearing with proper notice, and to issue a new order regarding the $25 fee.
- The court held section 893.13 constitutional, rejecting Shelton’s strict-liability interpretation and clarifying the role of section 893.101.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment ruling admissibility | Maestas contends the court erred in sustaining the State's improper impeachment objection. | State contends the ruling was appropriate to manage impeachment | Affirmed on the issue |
| Costs and fees imposition | Maestas argues the court erred in ordering excessive and improper fees (PD and ancillary costs). | State argues fees were proper under statute and county ordinance, or that remand is needed for proper factual findings. | Remanded to adjust PD fee to $100 or hold proper hearing; remand for new order on the $25 fee |
| Facial constitutionality of section 893.13 | Maestas argues section 893.13 is unconstitutional on due-process grounds and may be strict liability. | State argues section 893.101 does not create strict liability and preserves mens rea elements. | Constitutionality upheld; section 893.101 does not remove scienter or render §893.13 strictly liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (upholds constitutionality of §893.101 and reading of mens rea)
- Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996) (recognizes knowledge of illicit nature as an element and later statutory changes)
- Miller v. State, 35 So.3d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (discusses §893.101 abrogation of additional knowledge element)
- Barrientos v. State, 1 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (recognizes that guilty knowledge includes presence; admissibility of inferences)
- State v. Giorgetti, 868 So.2d 512 (Fla.2004) (statutory construction to avoid unconstitutional interpretation; scienter generally required)
- State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973) (recognizes knowledge of presence as element in possession cases)
- Oxx, 417 So.2d 287 (Fla.5th DCA 1982) (drug possession knowledge standard in Florida)