UVALDO OROZCO

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

towen countcnsa NUMBER: B12-4 ' -.., - -1;

UVALDO OROZCO

- Appel|ent(s)

VS.

STATE OF FLORIDA

AppeI|ee(s) _ _ _ .,- _._.._ Q On Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Judge FRED SERAPHIN. ANDREA S. (IUNli.l., ESQ. for appellantisi. MARIANNE corms, ESQ. ASSISTANT snort ATTORNEY for eppe|Iee(s). Before Rodriguez, Gayles, and, Muir, 1.}.

AFFIRMED.

MUIR, J. SPECIALLY CONCURS.

At a non~jury trial, the state of Florida p{E5B|’ilE!d a case of indecent exposure pursuant to Florida Statute 800-O3, after denial of a motion to suppress. According to the state’s lay witness, she ohsenred the defendants vehicle parked in a spot in front of a group of young women playing tennis on the UM campus. A passerby observed the defendant, who was seated in the passenger side of the SUV with the window rolled all the way down, looked In the car at eye level with the defendant and saw the defendant's penis while he masturbeted. The passerby called the police and an ofiicer approached the defendant from the rear, saw the defendant in the dark SUV described by the lay witness, and "witnessed the defendant with his hands In ¢-1 O6f_23—’i4 '!O:4'I FROI‘i— V T—8I}'I P0001 /0007 F-427 ABII-1:5-$3..‘5' R I?" [*2] O8—2?—’l4 10:41 FRGl\‘1— T—80i P0002/G007 F-427 J‘ , (\ (<.\ I |‘ q. 1> his crotch area and his pants unzipped." The defendant was arrested and charged and convicted of indecent exposure and placed on probation with conditions, including a $1,000 fine, court costs and probation. ' The officer had the lay witness identify the dark SUV as the same SUV that she saw with the man Sliilflg ill the DilSS€'figer seat masturbating minutes earlier, although she was unable to identify his face. After the state rested its case, the defendant waived his right to remain silent, and admitted being in the SUV described by the lay Witness, and gave an explanation of why he was in the passenger seat and parked in the area that the trial court found implausible. His explanation is that he was driving by the University of Miami and dropped his cell phone. (T.43,44). He also rolled down his passenger window to fix his rear view mirror on the passenger side. (T-43). Instead of getting out of his car and walking over to the mirror, he hopped over the center console. (1247). In the subsequent ten minutes, the defendant looked for his cellphone and tried to fix his rear view mirror all from the passenger side of his vehicle. (T. 47, 43). The trial judge, having seen and heard the appeilanrs testimony and having observed his demeanor on the witness stand, is in the best position to judge the truthftliness of the testimony. See Buenocmo v. State, 41:3 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1*‘ DCA I985}. ' For this reason, I specialiy concur in the affirmantze. ITI“

THIS

__ dal/cif_ ____,ZO14. MWwfl’ CELESTE‘ '

UIR

/‘ " /{[4/4' % 395' ‘I; I-""*‘ ii.‘ cc: ANDREA s. CUNILL, ESQ.

ANSLEY B. PEACOCK, ESQ.

woo BRiCKELL AVENUE, sra. 1005 12,50 n.w. 12*" AVENUE MIAMI, rt. 32.131 MIAMI, rt. sense