Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bertrand Laidler, Jr., Petitioner v. Florida

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BERTRAND LAIDLER, JR., PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CAREY HAUGHWOUT

Public Defender

Benjamin Hunter Eisenberg

Assistant Public Defender

Counsel of Record

Office of the Public Defender

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida

421 Third Street

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(561) 355-7600

beisenberg@pdl5.state.fl.us

appeals@pdl5.org

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BERTRAND LAIDLER, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0234

[January 11, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562021CF000568A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PERCURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

*

*

*

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

ISSUE III

APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO A TWELVEPERSON JURY UNDER THE SIXTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND HE DID

NOT WAIVE THAT RIGHT

Appellant had the constitutional right to a jury trial because of

his felony offense. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 72-73 (1970).

But Appellant was convicted by a jury comprised of six people. He

wgues that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the

right to a twelve-person jury when the defendant is charged with an

offense punishable by more than six months in jail. The standard of

review of constitutional claims is de novo. See A.B. v. Florida Dept. of

Children &Family Services, 901 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Appellant can raise this issue for the first time on appeal

because the issue isn't whether he preserved this issue by objecting

in the trial court; the issue is whether he personally waived his

constitutional right to a twelve-person jury, and he did not. For

example, even if defense counsel had no objection to a five-person

jury, but the trial court did not secure the defendant's personal

waiver of his or her right to a six-person jury, the case would present

reversible error on appeal. Wallace v. State, 722 So. 2d 913, 914 (Fla.

22

2d DCA 1998); Gamble v. State, 696 So. 2d 420, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA

1997); Blair v. State, 698 So. 2d 1210, 1217-18 (Fla. 1997); see also

Johnson v. State, 994 So. 2d 960, 963-64 (Fla. 2008) (holding that

defendant must personally waive constitutional right to have jury

decide prior-convictions element in felony DUI case; defense

counsel's stipulation that trial court act as factfinder is insufficient).

In short, the defendant himself or herself must agree to be tried

by a jury with fewer jurors than constitutionally required. Appellant

acknowledges this Court came to a different conclusion in Albritton

v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D922 (Fla. 4th DCA May 3, 2023). But this

Court may have overlooked Wallace, Gamble, Blair, and Johnson.

Appellant notes that this Court recently decided Guzman v.

State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), which rejected a

defendant's argument "that his convictions by a six-person jury

violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution." The defendant in Guzman appealed his case to the

Florida Supreme Court, which denied review. See Guzman v. State,

SC22-1597. Mr. Guzman filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the

United States Supreme Court and the case is pending review.

23

Therefore, Appellant seeks to preserve this argument for further

review to the United States Supreme Court ..5

On the merits, although the United States Supreme Court held

in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970), thatjuries as small as

six were constitutionally permissible, Williams is impossible to

square with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140

S. Ct. 1390 (2020), which concluded that the Sixth Amendment's

"trial by an impartial jury" requirement encompasses what the term

"meant at the Sixth Amendment's adoption." Id. at 1395.

After the Sixth Amendment was enacted, a bevy of state courts

interpreted it to require a twelve-person jury. See Miller, Comment,

Six of One Is Not A Dozen of the Other, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 621, 643

n.133 (1998) (collecting cases from the late 1700s to the 1860s). In

1898, the United States Supreme Court added its voice to the chorus,

noting that the Sixth Amendment protects a defendant's right to be

tried by a twelve-person jury. Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 349-

5

Appellate attorneys have the obligation to "zealously assert[] the

client's position under the rules of the adversary system." R.

Regulating Fla. Bar prmbl. As part of this obligation, "[c]ounsel has

the responsibility to make such [arguments] as may be necessary to

keep the defendant's case in an appellate 'pipeline."' Sandoval v.

State, 884 So. 2d 214, 217 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

24

350 (1898). The Supreme Court continued to cite the basic principle

that the Sixth Amendment requires a twelve-person jury in criminal

cases for seventy more years. See, e.g., Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581,

586 (1900); Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 288 (1930); Duncan

v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 151-152 (1968).

In 1970, however, the Williams Court overruled this line of

precedent in a decision that Justice Harlan described as "stripping

off the livery of history from the jury trial" and ignoring both "the

intent of the Framers" and the Court's long held understanding that

constitutional "provisions are framed in the language of the English

common law[] and ... read in the light of its history." Baldwin v. New

York, 399 U.S. 117, 122-123 (1970) (citation omitted) (Harlan, J.,

concurring in the result iri Williams). Indeed, Williams recognized that

the Framers "may well" have had "the usual expectation" in drafting

the Sixth Amendment "that the jury would consist of 12" members.

Williams, 399 U.S. at 98-99. But Williams concluded that such

"purely historical considerations" were not dispositive. Id. at 99.

Rather, the Court focused on the "function" that the jury plays in the

Constitution, concluding that the "essential feature" of a jury is it

leaves justice to the "commonsense judgment of a group of laymen"

25

and thus allows "guilt or innocence" to be determined via "community

participation and [with] shared responsibility." Id. at 100-01.

According to the Williams Court, both "currently available evidence

[and] theory" suggested that function could just as easily be

performed with six jurors as with twelve. Id. at 101-102 & n.48.

Williams's ruling that the Sixth Amendment (as incorporated

to the States by the Fourteenth) permits a six-person jury cannot

stand in light of Ramos. There, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth

Amendment requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of

a serious offense. In reaching that conclusion, the Ramos Court

overturned Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), a decision that

it faulted for "subject[ing] the ancient guarantee of a unanimous jury

verdict to its own functionalist assessment." 140 S. Ct. at 1401-1402.

That reasoning undermines Williams as well. Ramos rejected

the same kind of "cost-benefit analysis" the Court undertook in

Williams, observing that it is not the Court's role to "distinguish

between the historic features of common law jury trials that (we

think) serve 'important enough functions to migrate silently into the

Sixth Amendment and those that don't."' 140 S. Ct. at 1400-01.

Ultimately, the Ramos Court explained, the question is whether "at

26

the time of the Sixth Amendment's adoption, the right to trial by jury

included" the particular feature at issue. Id. at 1402. As the history

summarized above establishes, there can be no serious doubt that

the common understanding of the jury trial during the Revolutionary

War era was that twelve jurors were required. See 140 S. Ct. at 1395.

Even setting aside Williams's now-disfavored functionalist logic,

its ruling suffered from another significant flaw: it was based on

research that was out of date shortly after the opinion issued.

Specifically, the Williams Court "f[ou]nd little reason to think" that

the goals of the jury guarantee-including, among others, "to provide

a fair possibility for obtaining a representative[] cross-section of the

community"-"are in any meaningful sense ·less likely to be achieved

when the jury numbers six, than when it numbers 12." Id. at 100.

The Court theorized that "in practice the difference between the 12man and the six-man jury in terms of the cross-section of the

community represented seems likely to be negligible." Id. at 102.

In the time since Williams, that determination has proven

incorrect. Indeed, the Court acknowledged as much just eight years

later in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), when it concluded

that the Sixth Amendment barred the use of a five-person jury.

27

Although Ballew did not overturn Williams, the Ballew Court

observed that empirical studies conducted in the 4andful of

intervening years highlighted several problems with

Williams'

assumptions. Moreover, the Ballew Court "admit[ted]" that it "d[id]

not pretend to discern a clear line between six members and five,"

effectively acknowledging that the studies it relied on also cast doubt

on the effectiveness of the six-member jury. Id. at 239.

Post-Ballew research has

further

undermined

Williams.

Current empirical evidence indicates "reducing jury size inevitably

has a drastic effect on the representation of minority group members

on the jury." Diamond et al., Achieving Diversity on the Jury: Jury

Size and the Peremptory Challenge, 6 J. of Empirical Legal Stud. 425,

427 (Sept. 2009); see also Higginbotham et al., Better by the Dozen:

Bringing Back the Twelve-Person Civil Jury, 104 Judicature 47, 52

(Summer 2020). Because "the 12-member jury produces significantly

greater heterogeneity than does the six-member jury," Diamond et

al., Achieving Diversity on the Jury, supra, at 449, it increases "the

opportunity for meaningful and appropriate representation" and

helps ensure that juries "represent adequately a cross-section of the

community." Ballew, 435 U.S. at 237.

28

Appellant recognizes that the state constitution provides:

SECTION 22. Trial by jury.-The right of trial by jury shall

be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications

and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed

by law.

Art. I,§ 22, Fla. Const. And he recognizes that section 913.10, Florida

Statutes, provides for six jurors except in capital cases. See also Fla.

R. Crim. P. 3.270.

But Florida's provision for a jury of six stems from the dawn of

the Jim Crow era, one month after federal troops were withdrawn

from the state. In 1875, the Jury Clause of the 1868 constitution was

amended to provide that the number of jurors "for the trial of causes

in any court may be fixed by law." See Florida Fertilizer & Mfg. Co. v.

Boswell, 34 So. 241, 241 (Fla. 1903).The common law rule of a jury

of twelve was still kept in Florida while federal troops remained in the

state. There was no provision for a jury of less than twelve until the

Legislature enacted a provision specifying a jury of six in Chapter

3010, section 6. See Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, 297-98 (1877);

Florida Fertilizer, 34 So. 15 241.

The Legislature enacted chapter 3010 with the jury-of-six

provision on February 17, 1877. Gibson, 16 Fla. 294. This was less

29

than a month after the last federal troops were withdrawn from

Florida in January 1877. See Jerrell H. Shofner, Reconstruction and

Renewal, 1865-1877, in The History of Florida 273 (Michael Gannon,

ed., first paperback edition 2018). The jury-of-six thus first saw light

at the birth of the Jim Crow era as former Confederates regained

power in southern states and state prosecutors made a concerted

effort to prevent blacks from serving on jurors.

In Ramos, Justice Gorsuch noted that the Louisiana nonunanimity rule arose from Jim Crow era efforts to enforce white

supremacy. Id. at 1394; see also id. at 1417 (Kavanaugh, J.,

concurring)

(non-unanimity was enacted "as one pillar of a

comprehensive and brutal program of racist Jim Crow measures'

against African-Americans, especially in voting and jury service.").

The history of Florida's jury of six arises from the same historical

context.

In view of the foregoing, a jury of six at a criminal trial for any

felony offense, particularly a crime punishable by up to life

imprisonment, is unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution.

30

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

LT. CASE NO: 2021CF00056B A

HT. CASE NO: 23-0234

I

•

IN THE CJRCUIT/COUN1Y COURT OF THE NINETEENTII JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Modified

Resentence

Amended

Corrected

Mitigated

Community Control Violator

Probation Violator

Case Number:

562021CF00056BAXXXXX

STATE OF FLORIDA

-vs-

Sexual Predator

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR

Sex Offender

Defendant

Minor Victim

Sentenced In Absentia

JUDGMENT

The Defendant, BERTRAND LAIDLER JR being personally before this Court represented

by AttorneyASHLEY NICOLE MINTON, the Attorney of record, and the State represented by

51EVEN RUSSELL PAKU, and having:

X

been trlM and fpund guilty by lurv pf Hip fqlfpWlnp cr!mpCG),

entered a plea of guilty to the fo\lowlng crlme(s).

entered a plea of nola ccntendere to the following crfme(s)

Admitted Violation of Probation

Found Guilty of Violation of Probation

Admitted a Violation of Community Control

Found Gullty of Vlolatlon of Community Control

Count

1

Offense Statute

Number(s)

Crime

FELONY BATTERY - PRIOR CONVICTION

784,03(2)

Level/

ODlS

Degree

Number

F-3

5601264287

X

iQd np gu:;e bglng ahpWQ why the defendant sbpuld not be adtudlgtted guilty. IT 15 ORDERED

THAT the defendant la hembv ADlUQXCAJEp GUXLJY pf the aboye cr(mefg) • M I Q CQUNTfsl 1

X

and being a gua!Jfied pffender pursuant tg E!gdda Statyte 943 325 - defendant shall be mquired

to submit: DNA samples as n:qulrsi;d by

•aw

and good cause being shown; IT IS OR.DER.ED THAT ADJUDICATION OF GUILT BE WITHHELD.

DB/CA/DC

Page 1 of 1

St. Lucie County File Date: 01/11/2023 09:11 AM

182

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

LT. CASE NO: 2021CF000568 A

HT. CASE NO: 23-0234

•

CASE NUMBER

2021CF000568 A

The Defendant In open Court was advised of the right to appeal from this Sentence by fili

appeal

nee of counsel in

within 30 days from this date with the Cieri< of this Court and the Defendanfs right to the

taking the appeal at the expense of the S - on showing of indlgency.

Circuit Judge

FINGERPRINTS OF DEFENDANT

1. Right Thumb

2. Right Index

3. Right Middle

. Right Ring

5. Right Little

6. Left Thumb

7. Left Index

B. Left Middle

9. Left Ring

10. Left LiWe

•

<; ~~~):~:. ::1\·~:~

·'°'

--~

:4;:~

...

-- '

~.

Fingerprints tak

' .•.

.,. .c··~:

~:·:;

. -~-""- ..

~~': :·

-----

-k~~~....::1.j'...fa__~Qep11~

I HEARBY CERTIFY that the above and forgoing fingerprints are the fingerprints of the Defendant

------

_B_E_R_T_RAN

__D_LAl_D_L_E_R_JR

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.and that they were placed thereon by said Defendant in my

pr:esenca in open Court this date.

DONE AND ORDERED in Open Court at st Lucie County, Florida, on

ay, January 4, 2023

Nunc Pro Tune To:

Circuit Judge STEVEN J LEVIN

St. Lucie County File Dale: 01/11/2023 09:11 AM

183

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

LT. CASE NO: 2021 CF00056B A

HT. CASE NO: 23-0234

~

1

IN THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL

STATEOFFLORIDA

CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR

SAINT LUCIE COUNTY

-VS-

CASE NUMBER

562021CF000568A

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR

DC NUMBER K80382

Defendant

ORDER OF COMMUNITY CONTROL

This cause coming before the Court to be heard, and you, the defendant, being now present before the court, and you

having

0

entered a plea of guilty to

[8J

entered a pica of nolo contendere to

0

0

been fonod goilty by jury verdict of

been fonod goilty by the court trying the case without a jury of

COUNT 1. FELONY BATTERY-PRIOR CONVICTION

SECTION I: JUDGMENT OF GUILT

[8J

The court hereby adjudges you to be guilty of the above offense(s).

Now, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that the imposition of sentence is hereby withheld and that you be placed·

on Community Control for a period of~ under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, subject to

Florida law.

SECTION 2: ORDER WITHHOLDING ADJUDICATION

0

Now, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that the adjudication of guilt is hereby withheld and that you be placed on

Community Control for a period of _ _ under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, subject to Florida

law.

SECTION 3: INCARCERATION DURING PORTION OF SUPERVISION SENTENCE

It is hereby ordered and adjudged that you be:

D

committed to the Department of Corrections

for a term of __prison with credit for_ jail time, followed by Community Control for a period of_ under the

supervision of the Department of Corrections, subject to Florida law.

or

confined in the County Jail

for a term of200 DAYS with credit for 85 DAYS jail time. After you have served all of the term, you shall be placed

on Community Control for a period of 18 MONTHS. FOLLOWED BY 1 YEAR PROBATION uoder the supervision

of the Department of Corrections, subject to Florida law.

D

Or

confined in the County Jail

for a term of _ _ with credit for _ _ jail time, as a special condition of supervision.

Revised 07-01-2021

Pagelof4

St. Lucie County File Date: 01/1712023 03:03 PM

184

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

LT. CASE NO: 2021CF000568 A

HT. CASE NO: 23-0234

1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that you shall comply with the following standard conditions of supervision as provided

by Florida law:

(I) You will report to the probation officer as directed.

(2) You will pay the State of Florida the amount of$~ per month, as well as 4% surcharge, toward the cost of your

supervision in accordance with s. 948.09, F.S. unless otherwise exempted in compliance with Florida Statutes.

1

(3) You will remain in a specified place. You will not change your residence or employment or leave the county of your

residence without first procuring the consent of your officer.

(4) You will not possess, carry or own any firearm. You will not possess, carry, or own any weapon without first procuring

the consent of your officer.

(S) You will live without violating any law. A conviction in a court of law is not necessary for such a violation of law to

constitute a violation of your probation, community control, or any other fonn of court ordered supervision.

(6) You will not associate with any person engaged in any criminal activity.

(7) You will not use intoxicants to excess or possess any drugs or narcotics unless prescnbed by a physician, an advanced

practice registered nurse, or a physician assistant. Nor will you visit places where intoxicants, drugs or other dangerous

substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed or used.

(8) You will work diligently at a lawful occupation, advise your employer of your probation status, and support any

dependents to the best of your ability, as directed by your officer.

(9) You will promptly and truthfully answer all inquiries directed to you by the court or the officer, and allow your officer

to visit in your home, at your employment site or elsewhere, and you will comply with all instructions your officer may

give you.

(10)

You will pay restitution, court costs, and/or fees in accordance with special conditions imposed or in accordance

with the attached orders.

You will submit to random testing as directed by your officer or the professional staff of the treatment center where

you are receiving treatment to determine the presence or use of alcohol or controlled substances.

(11)

(12)

You will submit a DNA sample, as directed by your officer, for DNA analysis as prescribed in ss. 943.325 and

948.014, F.S.

You will submit to the taking of a digitized photograph by tho department. This photograph may be displayed on

the department's website while you are on supervision, unless exempt from disclosure due to requirements ofs. 119.07,

(13)

F.S.

Page 2 of 4

Revised 07-01-2021

St. Lucie County File Date: 01/17/2023 03:03 PM

185

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

LT. CASE NO: 2021CF000568 A

HT. CASE NO: 23-0234

.- ( 14)

You will report in person within 72 hours of your release from incarceration to the probation office in Saint Lucie

County, Florida, unless otherwise instructed by the court or department. (This condition applies only if section 3 on the

previous page is checked.) Otherwise, you must report inunediately to the probation office located at 2806 South US

HWY I. Fort Pierce. FL 34982 .

SPECIAL CONDmONS

I. Batters Interyention Program within 15 days

2. Mental health evaluation and treatment within 30 days

3. Automatic early termination after 18 months (after completion of community control) all costs paid, all conditions

met, no violations

4. No early termination of community control

S. No contact with victim

6. Do not' come within 1 mile of victim

AND, IF PLACED ON COMMUNITY CONTROL, YOU WILL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING

CONDmONS, IN ADDmON TO THE STANDARD CONDmONS LISTED ABOVE AND ANY OTHER

SPECIAL CONDmONS ORDERED BY THE COURT:

You will report to your officer as directed, at least one time a week, unless you have written consent otherwise.

You will remain confined to your approved residence except for one half hour before and after your approved

employmen~

public service work, or any other special activities approved by your officer.

( 17)

You will maintain an hourly accounting of all your activities on a daily log, which you will submit to your officer

(15)

(16)

on request

0

(18) You will submit to electronic monitoring, follow the rules of electronic monitoring, and pay for the cost of the

electronic monitoring service.

Effective for offenders whose crime was committed on or after September 1, 2005, there is hereby imposed, in

additional to any other provision in this section, mandatory electronic monitoring as a condition of supervision for those

who:

• Are placed on supervision for a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, ors. 847.0145 and the

unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older;

•

•

or

Are designated as a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775 .21; or

Has previously been convicted of a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, ors. 847.0145 and

the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or

older.

You are hereby placed on notice that should you violate your probation or community control, and the conditions

set forth ins. 948.063(1) or (2) are satisfied, whether your probation or community control is revoked or not revoked, you

shall be placed on electronic monitoring in accordance with F.S. 948.063.

Effective for offenders who are subject to supervision for a crime that was committed on or after May 16, :2010, and

who has been convicted at any time of committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal

offenses listed ins. 943.0435(1Xh)l.a.(I), or a similar offense in another jurisdiction, against a victim who was under the

age of 18 at the time of the offense; the following conditions are imposed in addition to all other conditions:

(a) A prohibition on visiting schools, child care facilities, parks, and playgrounds, without prior approval from the

offenders supervising officer. The court may also designate additional locations to protect a victim. The prohllJition ordered

under this paragraph does not prohibit the offender from visiting a school, child care facility, park, or playground for the

sole purpose of attending a religious service as defined ins. 775.0861 or picking up or dropping off the offenders children

or grandchildren at a child care facility or school.

(b) A prohibition on distributing candy or other items to children on Halloween; wearing a Santa Claus costume, or

other costume to appeal to children, on or preceding Christmas; wearing an Easter Bunny costume, or other costume to

Page 3 of4

Revised 07-01-2021

St. Lucie County File Date: 01/17/2023 03:03 PM

186

BERTRAND LAIDLER JR vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

LT. CASE NO: 2021CF000568 A

HT. CASE NO: 23-0234

.- 8ppeal to childre~ on or preceding Easter; entertaining at children's parties; or wearing a clown costume; without prior

approval from the court.

Effective for offenders whose crime was committed on or after October 1, 2014, and who is placed on probation or

community control for a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), ors. 847.0145, in addition to all

other conditions imposed, is prohibited from viewing, accessing, owning, or possessing any obscen~ pornographic, or

sexually stimulating visual or auditory material unless otherwise indicated in the treatment plan provided by a qualified

practitioner in the sexual offender treabnent program. Visual or auditory material includes, but is not limited to, telephone,

electronic media, computer programs, and computer services.

YOU ARE HEREBY PLACED ON NOTICE that the court may at any time rescind or modify any of the conditions of

your probation, or may extend the period of probation as authorized by law, or may discharge you from further supervision.

If you violate any of the conditions of your probation, you may be arrested and the court may revoke your probation,

adjudicate you guilty if adjudication of guilt was withheld, and impose any sentence that it might have imposed before

placing you on probation or require you to serve the balance of the sentence.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that when you have been instructed as to the conditions of probation, you shall be released

from custody ifyou are in custody, and ifyou are at liberty on bond, the sureties thereon shall stand discharged from liability.

(This paragraph applies only if section I or section 2 is checked.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that you pay:

Court Costs, Fees, and Fines, as imposed at sentencing, in the total amount of: S See court cost sheet.

Payments processed through the Department of Corrections will be assessed a 4% surcharge pursuant to s. 945.31, F.S.

Pursuant to s. 948.09, F .S., you will he assessed an amount of$2.00 per month for each month of supervision for the Training

Trust Fund Surcharge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of this court tile this order in the clerk's office and provide certified copies of

same to the officer for use in compliance with the requirements of law.

DONE AND ORDERED, on

\ ( l 1t '}.,

NUNC PRO TUNC 01/04/23

Hon.

S~vin,

:uitJudge

I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this order and that the conditions have been explained to me and I agree to abide by

them.

Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Defendant

Instructed by:_~-~~~,,.---------­

Supervising Officer

Page4of4

Revised 07-01-2021

St. Lucie County File Date: 01/17/2023 03:03 PM

187