RICHARD TAFFE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
15-4262
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6thDec 13, 2017Background
- Taffe pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received three years of probation with a condition not to violate the law.
- While on probation, Taffe and two others arranged a bogus electronics transaction, kidnapped the store owner at gunpoint, held him in a car, and discussed killing him to prevent him from talking to police.
- Co-defendant threatened the victim with death if he spoke to police, removed the victim’s driver’s license, and released him on the roadside.
- The State filed a Violation of Probation (VOP) affidavit alleging new-law offenses including robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, armed false imprisonment, felony battery, burglary of a conveyance, grand theft, and witness tampering.
- At the VOP hearing the court found Taffe violated probation on all alleged counts and additionally found he committed armed kidnapping (a charge not listed in the VOP affidavit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported a VOP finding of witness tampering under §914.22(1)(e) | State: Taffe threatened the victim to prevent reporting to police; that intent suffices for tampering | Taffe: No evidence the victim was attempting to contact police when threatened; First DCA precedent requires such evidence | Court affirmed: statute does not require the witness to be attempting to contact law enforcement at the time; threats with intent to hinder reporting suffice (adopting McCloud) |
| Whether the court could find VOP for armed kidnapping when VOP affidavit did not allege that offense | State: (implicitly) facts supported kidnapping | Taffe: Revocation cannot be based on a violation not charged in the VOP affidavit | Court reversed as to that particular finding: that violation must be struck because the VOP affidavit did not allege armed kidnapping, but other valid violations suffice to uphold revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- McCray v. State, 171 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (held First DCA that witness must be attempting to contact law enforcement when tampering occurs)
- McCloud v. State, 224 So. 3d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (held §914.22(1)(e) does not require that the witness be attempting to contact law enforcement at the time of the threat; adopted by this court)
- Quarantello v. Leroy, 977 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (statutory construction avoids interpretations producing absurd results)
- Bourne v. State, 869 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (VOP affidavit must set forth basic facts; revocation based on an uncharged violation is error)