Preview
Filing # 171100830 E-Filed 04/17/2023 08:46:23 AM
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
2 FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION
3
4 STATE OF FLORIDA,
5 Plaintiff,
CASE NUMBER: 49-2021-CF-1992-OS
6 vs.
DIVISION NUMBER: 11-A
7 THOMAS MATTHEW SNELL,
8 Defendant./
9
10 MOTIONS HEARING
11 BEFORE
12 THE HONORABLE TOM YOUNG
13
14 Judge Jon B. Morgan Courthouse
Courtroom 5-C
15 Kissimmee, Florida 34741
January 25, 2023
16 Transcribed from digital media
17
A P P E A R A N C E S:
18
JUSTIN COLLINS, ESQUIRE
19 Office of the State Attorney
2 Courthouse Square
20 Suite 3500
Kissimmee, Florida 34741
21 On behalf of the State
22
ALESHA SMITH, ESQUIRE
23 Office of the Public Defender
2 Courthouse Square
24 Suite 1600
Kissimmee, Florida 34741
25 On behalf of the Defendant
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
2
1 - - -
2 P R O C E E D I N G S
3 (January 25, 2023; 10:04 a.m.)
4 THE COURT: All right. We are on the record in
5 State of Florida versus Thomas Snell, 2021-CF-1992.
6 Appearance for the State, please?
7 MR. COLLINS: Justin Collins on behalf of the
8 State of Florida, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: And for Mr. Snell?
10 MS. SMITH: Alesha Smith on behalf of Thomas
11 Snell.
12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Smith.
13 All right. So this is a hearing on the defense
14 motions for renewed motion for judgment of acquittal
15 and motion for new trial. And the State responded, and
16 I've reviewed both defense motions and both State
17 responses.
18 So you can make whatever arguments you wish to
19 make.
20 MS. SMITH: Yes, Judge. Defense would essentially
21 be relying on our argument that was outlined in the
22 motion. If there's any specific areas that the Court
23 wants me to reargue, but I think the motion speaks for
24 itself in terms of the argument.
25 I guess the only argument that I would make in
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
3
1 terms of the State's response, while the State attempts
2 to distinguish each of the cases that were cited by
3 defense, I don't -- defense is of the position that
4 those distinct -- distinctions do not counter the
5 evidence or the weight and the burden that the State
6 would have had to prove for a judgment of acquittal.
7 In those cases that defense cited within the
8 motions, where defense is essentially arguing for the
9 judgment of acquittal that this was a -- a constructive
10 possession case, that even in viewing the evidence in
11 the light most favorable to the State there was no
12 evidence or testimony that would establish constructive
13 possession for each of the elements of the case based
14 off the fact that there were two baggies that were
15 collected from various parts of the vehicle.
16 The testimony was that only one of the two baggies
17 that were submitted to FDLE were tested. We're not
18 sure which of those baggies it was, whether it was the
19 baggie that was located within the black bag in the car
20 or for the baggie that was located on the bed of the
21 truck.
22 While the test- -- the testimony and evidence as
23 to who was in the vehicle and it being a sole
24 possession were statements that were alleged to have
25 been made by Mr. Snell to law enforcement, which were
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
4
1 not recorded. And I understand that it is in the --
2 viewed in the light most favorable to the State. There
3 was no additional evidence that would support that the
4 vehicle was, in fact, registered to Mr. Snell or that
5 he was the only one in the vehicle at the time of the
6 accident.
7 The testimony also was that the vehicles were
8 unsecured and left for an undeterminate amount of time
9 prior to being secured, and an inventory ultimately
10 being conducted while lay people and other law
11 enforcement personnel were on scene.
12 So defense's argument is that a judgment of
13 acquittal should have been granted, and/or now the
14 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based
15 off of lack of constructive possession being proven for
16 the prima facie case for the judgment of acquittal.
17 I don't want to reread the arguments in the
18 motions, so if the Court has any specific areas that
19 they would like defense to focus on, I'd be more than
20 happy to. But in terms of the State's distinguishing
21 of the cases, defense is of the position that those
22 distinctions don't overcome the prima facie -- don't
23 overcome the failure to establish a prima facie case
24 and that the motion should be granted.
25 THE COURT: I -- I have one question about
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
5
1 something I read, and the State didn't address it.
2 It's a factual question. And obviously I don't have a
3 transcript to refer back to.
4 My memory of the Osceola County deputy's testimony
5 was that when he arrived at the scene -- and there were
6 other deputies there as well, although I think he was
7 in charge of securing the scene for FHP. But I believe
8 his testimony was when he arrived, EMS was there
9 tending to Mr. Snell. I thought the -- I believe the
10 defense motion argued that Mr. Snell was already at the
11 hospital when the deputy arrived.
12 MS. SMITH: That was defense's recollection of the
13 testimony was that once he arrived on scene, they had
14 already been transported. And basically he turned it
15 over to FHP and made no contact with Mr. Snell, got no
16 information, let FHP take care of that and then just
17 essentially was there for the kits and assisting FHP
18 with the searching.
19 THE COURT: All right. I think your -- I think
20 my -- my recollection corresponds with your
21 recollection except for that issue of where was EMS
22 when the deputy arrived.
23 Mr. Collins, what's your -- what's your
24 recollection?
25 MR. COLLINS: My recollection, Your Honor -- and
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
6
1 I've had conversations with the deputies, so I don't
2 want to speak ill, but from what my information
3 (indiscernible) the Court, and I believe he
4 testified -- and I'm not a hundred percent, but I'm
5 90 percent sure -- is EMS was attending to Mr. Snell
6 and they were loading him up into the ambulance,
7 basically, when he arrived on scene, basically.
8 So he was on scene when Deputy Garcia responded.
9 He was not on scene when FH [sic] Trooper Paulino
10 arrived. That's why Paulino had to go to the hospital
11 because he had already been transported to the
12 hospital.
13 THE COURT: Right. So, I mean -- obviously the
14 record controls, not our memory. But the reason I even
15 ask that question is because that is, for what it's
16 worth, some evidence of how much time lapsed before the
17 deputy got at the scene because that's -- you know --
18 MR. COLLINS: And from his thing, he was the --
19 one of the first on scene, Your Honor. The only ones
20 that had basically beaten him was the fire department
21 and EMS, basically. He was -- he was the first officer
22 on scene.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Anyway, that -- that was the
24 only question I had after reviewing the paperwork.
25 Ms. Smith, is there anything else you want to
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
7
1 argue?
2 MS. SMITH: No, Judge --
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 MS. SMITH: -- not in terms of the motion for
5 judgment of acquittal.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
7 Mr. Collins, is there anything you wish to argue?
8 MR. COLLINS: Not really, Your Honor. I just
9 reemphasize my argument I laid out in my motions and
10 stuff like that. The case law's very clear, especially
11 when we have a constructive possession case. State's
12 not trying to argue it's actual possession. It's
13 definitely constructive possession.
14 When you're in the sole -- the sole occupant of a
15 vehicle, you are considered to have dominion and
16 control over any items in that vehicle, even when --
17 there was a case I cited where basically defense argued
18 that he -- it was his sister and it was a rental car
19 and in and out.
20 And even the judge kind of brought that up,
21 basically. The DCA in that case overturned that judge
22 and said, no, if you are, basically, the sole occupant
23 of the vehicle, dominion and control is inferred, and
24 therefore, that lower court got it incorrect.
25 And there's other cases I cited like Lee, and
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
8
1 stuff like that, in my motion that says when you're the
2 sole occupant, you are presumed to have dominion and
3 control of the occu- -- the items in your vehicle
4 basically.
5 So the State would argue that we did meet a prima
6 facie case, and therefore, the State -- the Court
7 should deny the motion.
8 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
9 So I've reviewed some of this case law during the
10 trial and when I ruled at trial on the motion for
11 judgment of acquittal. And I reviewed last night some
12 of the case law cited in defense's motion for new trial
13 because I wanted to make sure that I was, you know,
14 understanding the law correctly and remembering.
15 So I think the case law that the defense has cited
16 is distinguishable by the fact this is an exclusive
17 possession scenario. The evidence is what it is, but
18 the evidence established a jury could conclude that
19 this was an exclusive possession scenario, and so there
20 are some inferences that can arrive [sic].
21 The arguments were that there were these time
22 lapses and such, and the jury shouldn't make that
23 inference, but that was a jury question. So there
24 was -- for purposes of the judgment of acquittal, there
25 was sufficient evidence for the -- to go to the jury
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
9
1 and for the jury to find as it did. So I'm gonna deny
2 the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal.
3 As for the motion for new trial, um, and the
4 challenge to the weight and sufficiency, it seems to
5 me -- and I -- I get the defense argument. I get the
6 defense argument. It was a well-tried case, as it
7 always is when Ms. Smith is involved as defense
8 counsel.
9 Mr. Collins, this was the first trial I've had
10 with you, so no offense for --
11 MR. COLLINS: I take no offense, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: -- you not -- I have no prior
13 experience with you.
14 But -- so I understand the defense argument. But
15 it seems to me the defense argument is asking me to
16 weigh what the State did not introduce versus what the
17 State did introduce. And I -- I think that turns the
18 new trial analysis on the head a little bit, because
19 the issue as a seventh juror is the weight and
20 credibility of the evidence that was introduced during
21 the trial.
22 And in that respect, there were only three
23 witnesses. They were not equivocal. There was nothing
24 that impeached their credibility or that challenged,
25 really, the truth of their -- their testimony. There
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
10
1 was cross-examination, but there -- this wasn't a case
2 where someone was equivocal or someone had a motive to
3 fabricate or, um, someone had changed their story.
4 Those circumstances weren't there.
5 So I think the weight of what was introduced is
6 not subject to question, I guess, is how I would put
7 it. Certainly there was more the State could have
8 introduced if it had chosen to, but that's a trial
9 strategy issue for the State and is -- I don't believe
10 something the Court considers on consideration of the
11 weight of the evidence.
12 The weight of the evidence, in my mind, speaks to
13 the evidence actually introduced. And in that sense,
14 the weight is not questionable in my opinion. And
15 because, um, it was enough evidence to go to the jury,
16 and the jury could find as it did, I -- I think that,
17 as I said before, the motion for judgment of acquittal,
18 um, has to be denied.
19 And I believe because the weight is not really
20 subject to question, given the nature of the testimony
21 and no real credibility issues, that the motion for new
22 trial should be denied. So I'm going to deny both
23 motions.
24 This was not noticed today for sentencing, so
25 we're not gonna do sentencing. The question I have for
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
11
1 you, Mr. Collins -- and I'm asking this question solely
2 to determine whether I'm going to order a PSI or not --
3 is, number one, is Mr. Snell entitled to a PSI?
4 MR. COLLINS: He is not, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: All right. And, number two, does he
6 score more than the mandatory minimum?
7 MR. COLLINS: I'm just double-checking, Your
8 Honor. I do not believe he does actually.
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible.)
10 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
11 MR. COLLINS: He scores 58.05.
12 THE COURT: Okay. So that's below the mandatory
13 minimum.
14 MR. COLLINS: That's below.
15 THE COURT: Okay. So I'm not going to order a PSI
16 in that case. So we just need to get this set for a
17 sentencing hearing.
18 THE CLERK: We can set for a sentencing status on
19 February 1st at 8:30.
20 THE COURT: Does that give you time, Ms. Smith, to
21 get ready for any sentencing hearing?
22 MS. SMITH: Yes, Judge.
23 THE COURT: Well, it's set for 8:30. That's my
24 short matters docket, so I wouldn't be able to do a
25 sentencing hearing at 8:30.
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
12
1 MR. COLLINS: Your Honor, the only thing I wanted
2 to bring to the Court's attention is me and Ms. Smith
3 both have trials in front of Ms. -- Judge Wilson next
4 week. We're at the top of the list.
5 THE COURT: Bless you.
6 MR. COLLINS: I just want Your Honor to be aware
7 of that. That's the only thing that could be a hiccup
8 a little bit.
9 THE COURT: That's fine.
10 Betsy, can you take a look at our docket for
11 Friday, February 3rd?
12 MS. SMITH: I have to go to Orlando, I think, that
13 day, Judge, in the afternoon, for sure.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MS. SMITH: If you were looking at afternoon.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Or the 2nd.
17 (The Court talking to the clerk.)
18 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to tentatively
19 set sentencing for 11:30 on February 2nd; Thursday,
20 February 2nd. If you-all are in trial, then
21 obviously that won't happen. But let's leave our
22 status hearing for 8:30 on the 1st. You can appear
23 virtually for that. That's my short matters docket.
24 And you guys can advise whether you're in trial at that
25 time. If so, we can reschedule the 2nd. And if not,
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
13
1 we'll have the sentencing on the 2nd at 11:30.
2 MS. SMITH: 11:30?
3 THE COURT: Yes. So just have whatever witnesses
4 or anything you wish to present at that time.
5 MR. COLLINS: And on the 1st, Your Honor, we
6 kept the time that we said last time, right? I just
7 want to make sure.
8 THE COURT: 8:30. Right.
9 MR. COLLINS: Okay.
10 THE COURT: And that's the one you can appear
11 virtually for.
12 MR. COLLINS: Appreciate it, Your Honor.
13 MS. SMITH: Do we just email Ms. Cooper for a
14 link?
15 THE COURT: It's on my division procedures, but
16 yeah --
17 MS. SMITH: Okay.
18 THE COURT: -- if you want to email Ms. Cooper,
19 it's the same link as before, except it's D-I-V 22.
20 MS. SMITH: Gotcha.
21 (The Court talking to the clerk.)
22 MS. SMITH: Judge, we can just appear in person.
23 MR. COLLINS: We're just -- we're gonna be in
24 Judge Wilson's courtroom so we literally -- just --
25 yeah.
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
14
1 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
2 MS. SMITH: So it's 8:30. And then she typically
3 starts at about 8:45, so ...
4 THE COURT: And it's DIV 22, just FYI for future
5 reference.
6 MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 (At ease.)
8 THE COURT: All right. Well, thank you, both.
9 Thank you, Mr. Snell.
10 MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 (These proceedings concluded at 10:22 a.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
15
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2 STATE OF FLORIDA:
3 COUNTY OF OSCEOLA:
4 I, Julie P. Sullivan, CRC, RPR, Official Court Reporter
5 of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, do hereby certify,
6 pursuant to Florida Statute 29, that I was authorized to and
7 did transcribe in stenographic shorthand the foregoing
8 proceedings from a digital recording to the best of my
9 ability, and that thereafter my stenographic shorthand notes
10 were transcribed to typewritten form by the process of
11 computer-aided transcription, and that the foregoing pages
12 contain a true and correct transcription of my shorthand
13 notes taken therein.
14
15 Signed this 14th day of April 2023, in the City of
16 Kissimmee, County of Osceola, State of Florida.
17
18
19
20 /s/Julie Sullivan, CRC, RPR
Julie Sullivan, CRC, RPR
21 Official Court Reporter
22
23
24
25
Ninth Judicial Circuit
Court Reporting Services
Preview
Filing # 171100830 E-Filed 04/17/2023 08:46:23 AM 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND 2 FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA, 5 Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: 49-2021-CF-1992-OS 6 vs. DIVISION NUMBER: 11-A 7 THOMAS MATTHEW SNELL, 8 Defendant./ 9 10 MOTIONS HEARING 11 BEFORE 12 THE HONORABLE TOM YOUNG 13 14 Judge Jon B. Morgan Courthouse Courtroom 5-C 15 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 January 25, 2023 16 Transcribed from digital media 17 A P P E A R A N C E S: 18 JUSTIN COLLINS, ESQUIRE 19 Office of the State Attorney 2 Courthouse Square 20 Suite 3500 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 21 On behalf of the State 22 ALESHA SMITH, ESQUIRE 23 Office of the Public Defender 2 Courthouse Square 24 Suite 1600 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 25 On behalf of the Defendant Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 2 1 - - - 2 P R O C E E D I N G S 3 (January 25, 2023; 10:04 a.m.) 4 THE COURT: All right. We are on the record in 5 State of Florida versus Thomas Snell, 2021-CF-1992. 6 Appearance for the State, please? 7 MR. COLLINS: Justin Collins on behalf of the 8 State of Florida, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: And for Mr. Snell? 10 MS. SMITH: Alesha Smith on behalf of Thomas 11 Snell. 12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Smith. 13 All right. So this is a hearing on the defense 14 motions for renewed motion for judgment of acquittal 15 and motion for new trial. And the State responded, and 16 I've reviewed both defense motions and both State 17 responses. 18 So you can make whatever arguments you wish to 19 make. 20 MS. SMITH: Yes, Judge. Defense would essentially 21 be relying on our argument that was outlined in the 22 motion. If there's any specific areas that the Court 23 wants me to reargue, but I think the motion speaks for 24 itself in terms of the argument. 25 I guess the only argument that I would make in Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 3 1 terms of the State's response, while the State attempts 2 to distinguish each of the cases that were cited by 3 defense, I don't -- defense is of the position that 4 those distinct -- distinctions do not counter the 5 evidence or the weight and the burden that the State 6 would have had to prove for a judgment of acquittal. 7 In those cases that defense cited within the 8 motions, where defense is essentially arguing for the 9 judgment of acquittal that this was a -- a constructive 10 possession case, that even in viewing the evidence in 11 the light most favorable to the State there was no 12 evidence or testimony that would establish constructive 13 possession for each of the elements of the case based 14 off the fact that there were two baggies that were 15 collected from various parts of the vehicle. 16 The testimony was that only one of the two baggies 17 that were submitted to FDLE were tested. We're not 18 sure which of those baggies it was, whether it was the 19 baggie that was located within the black bag in the car 20 or for the baggie that was located on the bed of the 21 truck. 22 While the test- -- the testimony and evidence as 23 to who was in the vehicle and it being a sole 24 possession were statements that were alleged to have 25 been made by Mr. Snell to law enforcement, which were Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 4 1 not recorded. And I understand that it is in the -- 2 viewed in the light most favorable to the State. There 3 was no additional evidence that would support that the 4 vehicle was, in fact, registered to Mr. Snell or that 5 he was the only one in the vehicle at the time of the 6 accident. 7 The testimony also was that the vehicles were 8 unsecured and left for an undeterminate amount of time 9 prior to being secured, and an inventory ultimately 10 being conducted while lay people and other law 11 enforcement personnel were on scene. 12 So defense's argument is that a judgment of 13 acquittal should have been granted, and/or now the 14 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based 15 off of lack of constructive possession being proven for 16 the prima facie case for the judgment of acquittal. 17 I don't want to reread the arguments in the 18 motions, so if the Court has any specific areas that 19 they would like defense to focus on, I'd be more than 20 happy to. But in terms of the State's distinguishing 21 of the cases, defense is of the position that those 22 distinctions don't overcome the prima facie -- don't 23 overcome the failure to establish a prima facie case 24 and that the motion should be granted. 25 THE COURT: I -- I have one question about Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 5 1 something I read, and the State didn't address it. 2 It's a factual question. And obviously I don't have a 3 transcript to refer back to. 4 My memory of the Osceola County deputy's testimony 5 was that when he arrived at the scene -- and there were 6 other deputies there as well, although I think he was 7 in charge of securing the scene for FHP. But I believe 8 his testimony was when he arrived, EMS was there 9 tending to Mr. Snell. I thought the -- I believe the 10 defense motion argued that Mr. Snell was already at the 11 hospital when the deputy arrived. 12 MS. SMITH: That was defense's recollection of the 13 testimony was that once he arrived on scene, they had 14 already been transported. And basically he turned it 15 over to FHP and made no contact with Mr. Snell, got no 16 information, let FHP take care of that and then just 17 essentially was there for the kits and assisting FHP 18 with the searching. 19 THE COURT: All right. I think your -- I think 20 my -- my recollection corresponds with your 21 recollection except for that issue of where was EMS 22 when the deputy arrived. 23 Mr. Collins, what's your -- what's your 24 recollection? 25 MR. COLLINS: My recollection, Your Honor -- and Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 6 1 I've had conversations with the deputies, so I don't 2 want to speak ill, but from what my information 3 (indiscernible) the Court, and I believe he 4 testified -- and I'm not a hundred percent, but I'm 5 90 percent sure -- is EMS was attending to Mr. Snell 6 and they were loading him up into the ambulance, 7 basically, when he arrived on scene, basically. 8 So he was on scene when Deputy Garcia responded. 9 He was not on scene when FH [sic] Trooper Paulino 10 arrived. That's why Paulino had to go to the hospital 11 because he had already been transported to the 12 hospital. 13 THE COURT: Right. So, I mean -- obviously the 14 record controls, not our memory. But the reason I even 15 ask that question is because that is, for what it's 16 worth, some evidence of how much time lapsed before the 17 deputy got at the scene because that's -- you know -- 18 MR. COLLINS: And from his thing, he was the -- 19 one of the first on scene, Your Honor. The only ones 20 that had basically beaten him was the fire department 21 and EMS, basically. He was -- he was the first officer 22 on scene. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Anyway, that -- that was the 24 only question I had after reviewing the paperwork. 25 Ms. Smith, is there anything else you want to Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 7 1 argue? 2 MS. SMITH: No, Judge -- 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MS. SMITH: -- not in terms of the motion for 5 judgment of acquittal. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 7 Mr. Collins, is there anything you wish to argue? 8 MR. COLLINS: Not really, Your Honor. I just 9 reemphasize my argument I laid out in my motions and 10 stuff like that. The case law's very clear, especially 11 when we have a constructive possession case. State's 12 not trying to argue it's actual possession. It's 13 definitely constructive possession. 14 When you're in the sole -- the sole occupant of a 15 vehicle, you are considered to have dominion and 16 control over any items in that vehicle, even when -- 17 there was a case I cited where basically defense argued 18 that he -- it was his sister and it was a rental car 19 and in and out. 20 And even the judge kind of brought that up, 21 basically. The DCA in that case overturned that judge 22 and said, no, if you are, basically, the sole occupant 23 of the vehicle, dominion and control is inferred, and 24 therefore, that lower court got it incorrect. 25 And there's other cases I cited like Lee, and Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 8 1 stuff like that, in my motion that says when you're the 2 sole occupant, you are presumed to have dominion and 3 control of the occu- -- the items in your vehicle 4 basically. 5 So the State would argue that we did meet a prima 6 facie case, and therefore, the State -- the Court 7 should deny the motion. 8 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 9 So I've reviewed some of this case law during the 10 trial and when I ruled at trial on the motion for 11 judgment of acquittal. And I reviewed last night some 12 of the case law cited in defense's motion for new trial 13 because I wanted to make sure that I was, you know, 14 understanding the law correctly and remembering. 15 So I think the case law that the defense has cited 16 is distinguishable by the fact this is an exclusive 17 possession scenario. The evidence is what it is, but 18 the evidence established a jury could conclude that 19 this was an exclusive possession scenario, and so there 20 are some inferences that can arrive [sic]. 21 The arguments were that there were these time 22 lapses and such, and the jury shouldn't make that 23 inference, but that was a jury question. So there 24 was -- for purposes of the judgment of acquittal, there 25 was sufficient evidence for the -- to go to the jury Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 9 1 and for the jury to find as it did. So I'm gonna deny 2 the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal. 3 As for the motion for new trial, um, and the 4 challenge to the weight and sufficiency, it seems to 5 me -- and I -- I get the defense argument. I get the 6 defense argument. It was a well-tried case, as it 7 always is when Ms. Smith is involved as defense 8 counsel. 9 Mr. Collins, this was the first trial I've had 10 with you, so no offense for -- 11 MR. COLLINS: I take no offense, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: -- you not -- I have no prior 13 experience with you. 14 But -- so I understand the defense argument. But 15 it seems to me the defense argument is asking me to 16 weigh what the State did not introduce versus what the 17 State did introduce. And I -- I think that turns the 18 new trial analysis on the head a little bit, because 19 the issue as a seventh juror is the weight and 20 credibility of the evidence that was introduced during 21 the trial. 22 And in that respect, there were only three 23 witnesses. They were not equivocal. There was nothing 24 that impeached their credibility or that challenged, 25 really, the truth of their -- their testimony. There Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 10 1 was cross-examination, but there -- this wasn't a case 2 where someone was equivocal or someone had a motive to 3 fabricate or, um, someone had changed their story. 4 Those circumstances weren't there. 5 So I think the weight of what was introduced is 6 not subject to question, I guess, is how I would put 7 it. Certainly there was more the State could have 8 introduced if it had chosen to, but that's a trial 9 strategy issue for the State and is -- I don't believe 10 something the Court considers on consideration of the 11 weight of the evidence. 12 The weight of the evidence, in my mind, speaks to 13 the evidence actually introduced. And in that sense, 14 the weight is not questionable in my opinion. And 15 because, um, it was enough evidence to go to the jury, 16 and the jury could find as it did, I -- I think that, 17 as I said before, the motion for judgment of acquittal, 18 um, has to be denied. 19 And I believe because the weight is not really 20 subject to question, given the nature of the testimony 21 and no real credibility issues, that the motion for new 22 trial should be denied. So I'm going to deny both 23 motions. 24 This was not noticed today for sentencing, so 25 we're not gonna do sentencing. The question I have for Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 11 1 you, Mr. Collins -- and I'm asking this question solely 2 to determine whether I'm going to order a PSI or not -- 3 is, number one, is Mr. Snell entitled to a PSI? 4 MR. COLLINS: He is not, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: All right. And, number two, does he 6 score more than the mandatory minimum? 7 MR. COLLINS: I'm just double-checking, Your 8 Honor. I do not believe he does actually. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible.) 10 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 11 MR. COLLINS: He scores 58.05. 12 THE COURT: Okay. So that's below the mandatory 13 minimum. 14 MR. COLLINS: That's below. 15 THE COURT: Okay. So I'm not going to order a PSI 16 in that case. So we just need to get this set for a 17 sentencing hearing. 18 THE CLERK: We can set for a sentencing status on 19 February 1st at 8:30. 20 THE COURT: Does that give you time, Ms. Smith, to 21 get ready for any sentencing hearing? 22 MS. SMITH: Yes, Judge. 23 THE COURT: Well, it's set for 8:30. That's my 24 short matters docket, so I wouldn't be able to do a 25 sentencing hearing at 8:30. Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 12 1 MR. COLLINS: Your Honor, the only thing I wanted 2 to bring to the Court's attention is me and Ms. Smith 3 both have trials in front of Ms. -- Judge Wilson next 4 week. We're at the top of the list. 5 THE COURT: Bless you. 6 MR. COLLINS: I just want Your Honor to be aware 7 of that. That's the only thing that could be a hiccup 8 a little bit. 9 THE COURT: That's fine. 10 Betsy, can you take a look at our docket for 11 Friday, February 3rd? 12 MS. SMITH: I have to go to Orlando, I think, that 13 day, Judge, in the afternoon, for sure. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MS. SMITH: If you were looking at afternoon. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Or the 2nd. 17 (The Court talking to the clerk.) 18 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to tentatively 19 set sentencing for 11:30 on February 2nd; Thursday, 20 February 2nd. If you-all are in trial, then 21 obviously that won't happen. But let's leave our 22 status hearing for 8:30 on the 1st. You can appear 23 virtually for that. That's my short matters docket. 24 And you guys can advise whether you're in trial at that 25 time. If so, we can reschedule the 2nd. And if not, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 13 1 we'll have the sentencing on the 2nd at 11:30. 2 MS. SMITH: 11:30? 3 THE COURT: Yes. So just have whatever witnesses 4 or anything you wish to present at that time. 5 MR. COLLINS: And on the 1st, Your Honor, we 6 kept the time that we said last time, right? I just 7 want to make sure. 8 THE COURT: 8:30. Right. 9 MR. COLLINS: Okay. 10 THE COURT: And that's the one you can appear 11 virtually for. 12 MR. COLLINS: Appreciate it, Your Honor. 13 MS. SMITH: Do we just email Ms. Cooper for a 14 link? 15 THE COURT: It's on my division procedures, but 16 yeah -- 17 MS. SMITH: Okay. 18 THE COURT: -- if you want to email Ms. Cooper, 19 it's the same link as before, except it's D-I-V 22. 20 MS. SMITH: Gotcha. 21 (The Court talking to the clerk.) 22 MS. SMITH: Judge, we can just appear in person. 23 MR. COLLINS: We're just -- we're gonna be in 24 Judge Wilson's courtroom so we literally -- just -- 25 yeah. Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 14 1 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. 2 MS. SMITH: So it's 8:30. And then she typically 3 starts at about 8:45, so ... 4 THE COURT: And it's DIV 22, just FYI for future 5 reference. 6 MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 (At ease.) 8 THE COURT: All right. Well, thank you, both. 9 Thank you, Mr. Snell. 10 MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Your Honor. 11 (These proceedings concluded at 10:22 a.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services 15 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF FLORIDA: 3 COUNTY OF OSCEOLA: 4 I, Julie P. Sullivan, CRC, RPR, Official Court Reporter 5 of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, do hereby certify, 6 pursuant to Florida Statute 29, that I was authorized to and 7 did transcribe in stenographic shorthand the foregoing 8 proceedings from a digital recording to the best of my 9 ability, and that thereafter my stenographic shorthand notes 10 were transcribed to typewritten form by the process of 11 computer-aided transcription, and that the foregoing pages 12 contain a true and correct transcription of my shorthand 13 notes taken therein. 14 15 Signed this 14th day of April 2023, in the City of 16 Kissimmee, County of Osceola, State of Florida. 17 18 19 20 /s/Julie Sullivan, CRC, RPR Julie Sullivan, CRC, RPR 21 Official Court Reporter 22 23 24 25 Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Reporting Services