Aguilar v. State

Citation: 239 So. 3d 108Docket: 13-2167

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 16, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On January 17, 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida issued an opinion in case No. 3D13-2167, where Juan Aguilar appealed his conviction and sentence related to DUI offenses stemming from a multi-vehicle accident that resulted in one death and two serious injuries. Aguilar contested the admission of blood alcohol test results obtained without a warrant while he was at Ryder Trauma Center for treatment. The court upheld the admission of the blood test results for Counts I, III, and V, finding no error. However, it reversed Counts II and IV due to a double jeopardy violation, as conceded by the State. The court affirmed the decision on other issues raised by Aguilar.

The incident occurred on December 9, 2007, when Aguilar’s vehicle collided with the scene of a prior accident while racing at high speed. Witness accounts described Aguilar as unresponsive, with slurred speech and signs of alcohol impairment. After being transported to the hospital with serious injuries, law enforcement did not obtain a warrant for the blood draw due to time constraints. The evidence included testimony from law enforcement about Aguilar's condition and the circumstances leading to the blood test.

Trooper Adkinson ordered a nonconsensual blood sample from Aguilar, which revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.112. Aguilar was arrested and charged with DUI Manslaughter and multiple counts of DUI causing serious bodily injury and property damage. He filed motions to suppress the blood test results, arguing a lack of probable cause and warrant. During the May 15, 2013 hearing, evidence indicated that obtaining a warrant would take at least four hours, during which alcohol could metabolize, creating an exigent circumstance. The trial court found sufficient probable cause for the blood draw, denying the suppression motions.

At trial, Aguilar's motions for acquittal were denied, and the jury convicted him on several counts while finding lesser charges on others. He was sentenced to a total of over fifteen years in prison and jail time. On appeal, the court upheld the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, affirming the convictions for DUI Manslaughter and related charges, but reversed lesser convictions due to double jeopardy concerns. The legal analysis focused on the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing that warrantless searches are typically unreasonable unless exigent circumstances justify them, as established in prior Supreme Court cases concerning DUI blood tests.

The Court determined that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood test following a DUI incident, citing the rapid decrease of alcohol concentration in the bloodstream after drinking stops. Key observations included the police officer detecting alcohol on the petitioner’s breath shortly after the accident, alongside bloodshot and glassy eyes, which were noted again at the hospital. The Court referenced Missouri v. McNeely, clarifying that while the natural dissipation of alcohol is a factor, it is not a standalone exigency; the totality of circumstances must be considered. In the case at hand, the serious nature of the accident—resulting in a fatality and serious injuries—along with the petitioner’s severe injuries and subsequent hospitalization created an urgent scenario. The blood sample was collected about ninety minutes post-accident, with testimony indicating that obtaining a warrant would have taken at least four hours. Therefore, the Court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress the blood test evidence, finding no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case of State v. Liles is distinguished from the current matter, as the Fifth District Court of Appeal did not uphold warrantless blood searches based on exigent circumstances due to the State's failure to provide sufficient evidence for such circumstances. In contrast, the State in the present case successfully met its evidentiary burden regarding exigent circumstances. 

Regarding Aguilar's double jeopardy argument, he was convicted of multiple DUI-related offenses, including DUI Manslaughter and two counts of DUI. Aguilar asserts that his convictions under Counts II and IV violate the double jeopardy clause, a claim the State acknowledges as valid. Florida law prohibits convictions for lesser offenses that are encompassed within a greater offense, and DUI is recognized as a lesser included offense of DUI Manslaughter. Consequently, the court directs the trial court to vacate Aguilar's DUI convictions.

The court affirms Aguilar's convictions and sentences for DUI Manslaughter, DUI causing serious bodily injury, and DUI causing damage to property or person, while reversing and remanding to vacate the DUI convictions. The court affirms all other issues without further discussion.