A Florida court has upheld the conviction of Richard Dean Hetherington for burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. The District Court of Appeal of Florida issued its ruling on April 24, 2020, in case number 2D18-2539. This decision affects Hetherington, who was found guilty by a jury and is now facing the consequences of his actions. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the charges and sentencing related to his case.
The case began when Hetherington was charged with burglary of a dwelling, a second-degree felony, and grand theft, a third-degree felony. During the trial, the prosecution amended the charge of grand theft to petit theft, which is a second-degree misdemeanor. Hetherington was subsequently tried for petit theft and convicted. The court's ruling confirms the jury's decision and the trial's proceedings, but also addresses an error in the judgment.
The parties involved in this case include Richard Hetherington, the appellant, and the State of Florida, the appellee. Hetherington's legal representation included Howard L. Dimmig, II, the Public Defender, and Jean Marie Henne, a Special Assistant Public Defender. The State was represented by Ashley Moody, the Attorney General, and C. Todd Chapman, an Assistant Attorney General. The case was heard in the Circuit Court for Charlotte County, where Judge Donald H. Mason presided over the trial.
In the court's ruling, it affirmed Hetherington's conviction for petit theft and burglary of a dwelling. The judges on the panel included Silberman, Lucas, and Rothstein-Youakim, who concurred with the decision. The court stated, "We reject Hetherington's suppression argument without comment and affirm the judgment and sentence, but we remand for correction of a scrivener's error in the judgment." This means that while Hetherington's conviction stands, there was a clerical mistake in the documentation that needed to be corrected.
The court noted that the original judgment inaccurately reflected that Hetherington was convicted of felony grand theft, while he had actually been found guilty of petit theft. The State acknowledged this error, and the court directed the trial court to correct it. The judges emphasized that Hetherington does not need to be present for this correction, as it is a ministerial act.
Hetherington also raised concerns about ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, claiming that his lawyer conceded his guilt to the jury regarding trespass. However, the court decided not to address this issue in the current appeal. Instead, it stated that Hetherington has the right to pursue this claim in a separate motion for postconviction relief, which he can file in the future.
The court's decision has important implications for Hetherington and others in similar situations. By affirming his conviction, the court reinforces the legal consequences of his actions. However, the correction of the clerical error also highlights the importance of accurate legal documentation. This ruling may serve as a reminder for legal professionals to ensure that all records are precise and reflect the true outcomes of cases.
Looking ahead, Hetherington has the option to appeal the ruling further or to file a motion for postconviction relief regarding his ineffective assistance claim. The court's ruling does not prevent him from pursuing these legal avenues. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future proceedings.