Bertonatti v. State , 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6210 ( 2015 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 29, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D13-2535
Lower Tribunal No. 10-1742
________________
Carlos Bertonatti,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Bronwyn C.
Miller, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay E. Silver, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Before LAGOA, SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
SALTER, J.
Carlos Bertonatti appeals from a conviction and sentence after entering an
open plea of guilt under four counts of a five-count information: manslaughter
while driving under the influence (“DUI”) and the failure to render aid,1 two counts
of resisting a law enforcement officer without violence, and fleeing or attempting
to elude a law enforcement officer.2 Bertonatti maintains on appeal that the two
charges of resisting a law enforcement officer without violence occurred during a
single, ongoing criminal episode, such that they are barred by double jeopardy.
We affirm, concluding that Bertonatti’s plea colloquy and the record before the
trial court contain insufficient facts to determine, in a de novo review for
fundamental error, whether or not there was a sufficient temporal break or
relocation between the two incidents of resisting without violence. Our affirmance
is without prejudice to Bertonatti’s right to raise this issue in a timely post-
conviction motion.
Facts and Procedural Background
The charges arose from a tragic 2010 incident in which an automobile driven
by Bertonatti struck and killed a bicyclist on the Bear Cut Bridge en route to Key
Biscayne. The incident occurred shortly before 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning as
Bertonatti was returning from a nightclub in downtown Miami.
1 § 316.193(3)(c)3.b, Fla. Stat. (2010).
2 Count four of the information, leaving the scene of a vehicle crash involving
death, was abandoned by the State before the general guilty plea was entered.
2
After striking the victim, Bertonatti remained in his vehicle and fled,
dragging the victim’s bicycle for three miles under the grill of his car. When
detained by police shortly after the collision, Bertonatti’s breath smelled of
alcohol. An officer noted that Bertonatti’s face was flushed and his eyes were
watery.
An officer from the DUI unit responded. The officer observed the same
signs of intoxication, and Bertonatti failed a series of roadside field sobriety tests.
At that point he was arrested. That officer then informed Bertonatti that the victim
had died and that Bertonatti would be required to provide a blood sample.
According to the arrest affidavit considered by the court as part of the plea
colloquy, Bertonatti refused to believe that the victim had died. He accused the
officer of lying to him.
Bertonatti did not comply with the officer’s request “to stand and step out to
my police vehicle,” and had to be physically escorted to the vehicle. After being
transported to the Key Biscayne Firehouse, Bertonatti was told by two additional
officers that the victim had died, but Bertonatti refused to believe them as well. At
that point, Bertonatti was taken into the fire station to provide the blood sample.
Bertonatti refused again, and he physically resisted the officer’s efforts to have his
blood drawn. Ultimately, the officer and others strapped Bertonatti to a backboard
and forcibly extended Bertonatti’s arm to obtain the blood sample.3
3
Analysis
The question presented by Bertonatti’s appeal is whether the two counts of
resisting a law enforcement officer without violence are barred by double jeopardy.
If so, the violation constitutes fundamental error and may be raised for the first
time on appeal. Corvo v. State, 916 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The State
does not dispute that the plea was a general plea (rather than a negotiated plea) and
there was no express waiver of the alleged double jeopardy. Long v. State, 678
So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
In the information, the two charges of resisting a law enforcement officer
without violence are identical. The same law enforcement officer is identified in
each of the two counts. What is unclear from this record, however—and it is
unclear because Bertonatti did not raise or develop the issue below—is whether the
resistance was continuous and ongoing (a single instance of obstruction of a single
law enforcement officer),4 or whether there were two instances separated in time
and location. The question of whether two distinct criminal acts occurred, such
that “double jeopardy is not a concern,”5 is disputed in this case.
3 The blood analysis ultimately disclosed a blood alcohol level substantially in
excess of the statutory threshold for DUI.
4 See Beazley v. State, 148 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
5 State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167, 1172 n.3 (Fla. 2006). The Supreme Court of
Florida receded from Paul in part in Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009), on
grounds which are not pertinent to the present case.
4
The arrest affidavit was reviewed by the trial court and found to contain an
independent and sufficient factual basis for the entry of the plea of guilt for both of
the counts in question. As already noted, the arrest affidavit stated that Bertonatti
refused a request to step over to an officer’s vehicle and he had to be physically
escorted to an officer’s vehicle for transit to the fire station on Key Biscayne.
While Bertonatti was seated in that vehicle, two other officers explained to him
that the victim had died. The affidavit next stated that Bertonatti “was then
transported to [the fire station]” where he was requested to provide a blood sample.
(Emphasis provided). When Bertonatti refused that request, he was taken to a fire
truck, strapped down to a backboard, and his arm was forcibly extended. The
blood sample was drawn despite his resistance.
In describing the prospective plea to Bertonatti, the trial court confirmed that
“[t]he way that it would work procedurally as the parties have agreed upon is you
would be pleading guilty to relevant charges, which are not barred by double
jeopardy and then the case would thereafter be set for sixty days for a sentencing
hearing.” On this record, then, we find the State’s suggestion for an evidentiary
resolution of the issue persuasive:
The State respectfully suggests the instant direct appeal be denied
without prejudice for [Bertonatti] to raise this issue in a rule 3.850
motion, where the State would have the opportunity at the trial court
level, to develop the facts which may show possible breaks in time
and location with greater clarity, as it had been deprived of that
opportunity as this issue had not been raised below.
5
The convictions and sentences below are affirmed, without prejudice to
Bertonatti’s right to raise the double jeopardy issue in a timely post-conviction
motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
6