final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County. Kelvin C.
Thomas, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Hogle exposed himself to a thirteen-year-old girl on a
panhandle beach. He was convicted of lewd or lascivious
exhibition, and he was sentenced to five years in prison and
ten years of sex-offender probation. On appeal, he argues
that the trial court erred in denying a motion in limine and
that fundamental error occurred during the prosecutor's
closing statement. We reject these arguments and affirm
Hogle's convictions. Hogle also argues that the court
erred in imposing various fines and costs during sentencing.
We agree that several fines were improper, so we reverse
certain aspects of his sentence.
trial, the victim testified that she was jogging on the beach
when she heard Hogle yell to her from a nearby condo. She
turned to look and saw Hogle, pants down, touching his erect
penis while making eye contact with her. The victim
immediately called police and then ran down the beach toward
her sister. She pointed out Hogle to her sister, and then she
and her sister went inside their condo. The victim told her
mother what happened, and everyone waited for police to
arrive. The victim and her sister then saw Hogle drive by in
a truck two or three times. Police had arrived by the last
time Hogle drove by, and an officer took off after Hogle,
ultimately stopping and arresting him.
questioned by officers, Hogle denied exposing himself. But
testifying at trial, Hogle admitted pulling his pants down
that afternoon. He insisted it was all a misunderstood joke
though, and that he neither touched himself nor saw any
children around. Instead, he testified, an adult friend had
just flashed her breasts, and he responded by momentarily
flashing his genitals.
hearing these competing versions of events, the jury voted to
first challenges an evidentiary ruling. He contends the trial
court should not have allowed testimony that he drove by the
victim's condo after the incident. Hogle argues this
testimony was irrelevant or, alternatively, that any
probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of
unfair prejudice. We review this claim for an abuse of
discretion. See Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664
(Fla. 1994) ("The trial court has broad discretion in
determining the relevance of evidence and such determination
will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."
relevance, Hogle argues that there was no question of
identity; after all, he admitted at trial that he was the one
on the balcony with his pants down. Where he drove afterward,
he argues, is completely irrelevant to whether his behavior
on the balcony was criminal. The problem with this argument
is that until he testified in his own defense, his identity
was in question. The State had to prove that he was the one
on the balcony, and the sisters' testimony that they saw
the man from the balcony repeatedly drive by their
condo-coupled with the officer's testimony that the man
they pointed out turned out to be Hogle- was relevant as to
whether Hogle was the perpetrator. See Carter v.
State, 23 So.3d 1238, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (finding
testimony about defendant's companions on the day of
carjacking relevant because it tended to prove the material
fact of the identity of the ...