The Third District Court of Appeal just handed down a mixed bag of a ruling for Christopher Barbaro Mesa, a man convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle in Miami-Dade County. While the court kept his conviction and prison time intact, they stepped in to trim back some of the “fine print” in his probation that they say went too far.
Mesa was originally sentenced to five years in prison followed by four years of probation. His legal team tried to argue that his rights were violated because a judge—not a jury—decided he was a “habitual felony offender,” a label that can lead to much harsher sentences. They pointed to recent Supreme Court cases to suggest a jury should have been the one to look at his record.
The appellate court didn’t buy that argument, at least not enough to overturn the sentence. Judge Lobree wrote that even if it was a mistake not to use a jury, it was a “harmless” one because the evidence of Mesa’s past crimes was so clear that any jury would have come to the same conclusion.
However, the court was much more critical of the specific rules Mesa was expected to follow once he gets out of prison.
READ: Midnight Heists And VIN Swaps: $388K Multi-State Stolen Car Ring Crashes Down In Florida
The Problem with the “Fine Print”
The court took a hard look at “Condition Eight” of Mesa’s probation and found a couple of big issues. First, the order told Mesa he had to “work diligently at a lawful occupation.” The problem? It didn’t include the standard legal cushion: “insofar as may be possible.”
The judges pointed out that requiring someone to keep a job no matter what is a trap—if the economy tanks or a company goes under, a person could end up back in jail through no fault of their own.
Second, the court struck down a rule that would have forced Mesa to tell any future employer that he was on probation. Because the trial judge didn’t announce that specific requirement out loud during the original sentencing, the appeals court ruled it couldn’t be enforced now.
Fixing the Paperwork
On top of the probation changes, the court noted a simple clerical error in the records. The current paperwork says Mesa pleaded guilty, which isn’t actually what happened.
The case is now headed back to the lower court in Miami-Dade, where Judge Laura Anne Stuzin has been told to fix the record, remove the employer-notification rule, and rewrite the work requirement so it’s a bit more realistic.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
