Miguel Angel Alfonso-Roche v. State of Florida
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8352
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Police discovered two stolen boats missing from an ocean engineering firm; surveillance cameras were covered and padlocks appeared cut.
- A deputy observed two pickup trucks leaving a nearby development; the defendant drove a maroon truck containing a stolen outboard engine, bolt cutters, black gloves, a blow torch, and oil/gas residue.
- A gray truck later crashed in the undeveloped area; its ignition had been punched and it contained two marine engines and tools; the gray truck was later identified as a vehicle stolen earlier that evening.
- Three engines were recovered in total; engines originally cost $77,729; repair/reconnection and truck repairs were documented.
- Jury convicted defendant of grand theft of a motor vehicle and first-degree grand theft; sentences imposed consecutively (5 years and 30 years). The motor vehicle theft conviction and 5-year sentence were reversed on appeal for insufficiency of evidence; other rulings affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial denigration for asserting jury trial right (closing) | State contended no fundamental error in closing remarks. | Defendant argued prosecutor denigrated him for asserting right to jury trial. | Rejected by majority (affirmed in part) — not a successful ground for reversal. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for grand theft of a motor vehicle | State argued defendant’s maneuvers to block deputy and presence of punched ignition showed knowledge and assistance. | Defendant argued no proof he knew the gray truck was stolen or assisted in its theft; counsel’s failure to move for JOA was ineffective or, alternatively, the error was fundamental. | Conviction reversed: evidence insufficient to prove knowledge/assistance; fundamental error because counsel did not move for judgment of acquittal (no need to decide ineffective-assistance claim). |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to move for judgment of acquittal | State contended claim not preserved and better raised via postconviction relief. | Defendant contended counsel was ineffective for not moving for acquittal on motor-vehicle theft. | Not reached on merits because reversal for insufficiency moots ineffective-assistance claim. |
| Excessiveness / constitutional challenge to 30-year sentence (and consecutive maximums) | Defendant argued sentence was grossly disproportionate, punitive for exercising trial rights, and unsupported by stated reasons; sought resentencing. | State argued sentence was within statutory limits and appellate review limited absent specific constitutional violation. | Majority affirmed sentence as within statutory limits but certified a question of great public importance regarding whether a within‑statutory maximum can violate Due Process or the Eighth Amendment when grossly disproportionate; special concurrence urged resentencing on proportionality grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 100 So.3d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (principals theory requires intent plus act encouraging or assisting another)
- Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (elements of grand theft of a motor vehicle)
- A.D. v. State, 106 So.3d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (insufficient evidence where defendant’s knowledge of theft not established)
- Canady v. State, 813 So.2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (passenger-only presence insufficient to sustain auto-theft conviction)
- Andre v. State, 13 So.3d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (conviction for crime totally unsupported by evidence is fundamental error)
- Adaway v. State, 902 So.2d 746 (Fla. 2005) (Eighth Amendment analysis permits challenge where sentence is grossly disproportionate)
- Hall v. State, 823 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2002) (Criminal Punishment Code does not per se violate Eighth Amendment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment limits juvenile life sentences without parole)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (Eighth Amendment requires consideration of youth in life-without-parole sentences for juveniles)
- United States v. Presley, 790 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussion of marginal deterrent effect and costs of very long sentences)