Shantel A. Brown v. the State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 29, 2020
Docket3D19-0542
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 29, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-542
Lower Tribunal No. 13-23892
________________
Shantel A. Brown,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch,
Judge.
J. Rafael Rodriguez, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration, we hereby reverse in part the trial court’s determination
that Appellant violated her community control/probation by possessing marijuana
and resisting arrest, as the record fails to support the allegations. The arrest report
and Appellant’s testimony, without more, are insufficient to prove the violations.
See Hernandez v. State, 33 So. 3d 143, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). While Appellant’s
testimony corroborated the time and place of the arrest, Appellant denied the basis
for the arrest. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case with instructions to the
trial court to remove the findings that Appellant violated her community
control/probation by committing the aforementioned offenses.
Appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s order denying her motion to vacate1
is hereby dismissed as one taken from a nonfinal, non-appealable order. The trial
court denied Appellant’s motion without prejudice and afforded her sixty days to
file an amended motion. Instead of filing an amended motion, Appellant chose to
appeal the order. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this portion of the
appeal without prejudice to the filing of a timely amended motion for postconviction
relief in the trial court within 60 days of the date of the issuance of this opinion. See
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(k); Moore v. State, 281 So. 3d 553, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
The trial court’s remaining rulings are otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part; dismissed in part.
1
We express no opinion on the validity or substance of the motion to vacate.
2