CLARENCE F. STEPHENSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court properly conducted the traffic stop, observed drugs in plain view, obtained valid Miranda-compliant statements, and imposed mandatory statutory fines that are not unconstitutionally excessive.
[1] A pre-Miranda admission obtained during a traffic stop is harmless error when the defendant was subsequently read Miranda rights before making incriminating statements.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephenson was arrested during a traffic stop in which officers discovered drugs in plain view in his vehicle. He was charged with possession and traf…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trafficking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for various counts of possession and trafficking in several different drugs. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence and statements obtained during the traffic stop which led to the discovery of drugs. We find competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions that the stop was valid, the officer observed a container containing illicit drugs in plain view after approaching the vehicle, and appellant’s incriminating statements were obtained after he was read his Miranda rights. While one admission was obtained before appellant was read his Miranda rights, its introduction into evidence was harmless error.
Appellant also claims that he was unconstitutionally tried by a sixmember jury instead of a twelve-member jury. We have previously rejected this argument in Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), rev. denied, No. SC22-1597, 2023 WL 3830251 (Fla. June 6, 2023). We likewise reject the claim in this case. Additionally, Appellant challenges the $210,000 in mandatory statutory fines assessed against him as unconstitutionally excessive.1 We conclude that the fines are not unconstitutional. See Gordon v. State, 139 So. 3d 958, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We do agree with appellant’s claim that the order assessing costs and fines incorrectly lists $52,500 as a discretionary fine when this was a mandatory fine. We remand for the trial court to correct this scrivener’s error. See Bryant v. State, 301 So. 3d 352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Appellant need not be present for the correction. Id.
Affirmed, but remanded to correct a scrivener’s error in sentence.
WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lavelle Dontavious Cunningham v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
-
Sanjay Johnson v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
- State v. Onterrious V. Tillman (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)