More Local news

• Funeral services for real-estate agent, husband to be held Saturday
• Naples delays talks on trolleys
• Naples tightens policy on naming city places

Tell us about it

• What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
• Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
• Upload photos & videos
• More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

Share and Enjoy [?]

NAPLES — An appellate court has overturned a five-year prison sentence for an Immokalee man convicted of cocaine trafficking, ruling that a Collier Circuit judge who presided over his trial allowed jurors to consider inadmissible evidence.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ordered that Armando “Snuff” Alcantar, 35, of 923 Egg Plant Lane, should have a new trial. Alcantar was sentenced on Sept. 24 to five years in a state prison, but must serve a mandatory three-year term, day for day, and pay a $50,000 fine.

In a six-page opinion handed down recently, the three-judge panel ruled that Judge Fred Hardt should not have allowed Sheriff’s investigator Timothy Howell, who was not involved in the transaction, to offer prejudicial and irrelevant testimony to bolster his identification of Alcantar — that he knew Alcantar and that the confidential informant had identified him as the dealer.

“The emphasis on his many years of law enforcement experience in the Immokalee community, his prior contact with Mr. Alcantar for ‘years’ and his knowledge of Mr. Alcantar’s ‘street name,’ combined to suggest strongly that Mr. Alcantar’s prior contact with the officer was the result of prior criminal activity,” said the ruling written by Judge Chris Altenbernd, who noted that Alcantar had no prior drug convictions, only two for grand theft 12 years earlier.

“... This error was compounded when the same officer was permitted to testify that the confidential informant identified the seller as Mr. Alcantar,” the ruling said. “... The jury struggled with this case, as indicated by its initial deadlock in the matter. Because these evidentiary errors may have affected the verdict, we reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.”

The appeals court noted that Hardt’s decision to admit that “irrelevant and prejudicial testimony” and hearsay testimony that the confidential informant, who didn’t testify at trial, identified Alcantar contradicted the rules of evidence and was an abuse of discretion.

Alcantar was convicted of trafficking 28 to 200 grams of cocaine on Aug. 29 after a one-day trial prosecuted by Assistant State Attorney James Chandler.

“It was a combination of errors that, quite frankly, should never have happened,” said defense attorney Lee Hollander of Naples, who handled the appeal. “(The state) didn’t have a good case. They tried to make a purse out of a sow’s ear.”

Testimony showed that in spring 2006, undercover Sheriff’s Investigator Fritzler Bernagene was working with a confidential informant who said he could set up a cocaine deal in Immokalee. On March 24, 2006, Bernagene met with the informant and a man later identified as Alcantar, who said he didn’t have the drugs at the time.

About two weeks later, the evening of April 7, 2006, the informant and Bernagene met with the seller and purchased 44.6 grams — roughly 1 1/2 ounces — of cocaine for $1,000. Nine months later, on Jan. 18, 2007, Alcantar was arrested.

Bernagene was not familiar with Alcantar and identified him from a photograph as the person who sold him cocaine that evening. The critical testimony that led to Alcantar’s conviction came despite the objections of Assistant Public Defender Michael Mummert, whose defense was mistaken identity — that Alcantar wasn’t the dealer. Although Howell wasn’t part of the transaction that night, the prosecutor used him as a witness to bolster Bernagene’s testimony, saying the man he’d known for years as Snuff was Alcantar.

When Mummert asked how Howell knew Alcantar was the dealer, Howell began testifying that the confidential informant had identified him. Mummert immediately objected, but Hardt allowed Howell to continue, ruling that Mummert had opened the door to that answer. Although Mummert’s question was “inartful,” the appeals panel ruled, his objection should have been sustained and it wasn’t “opening the door” because Howell’s testimony wasn’t correcting misleading or incomplete testimony.

“The undercover officer was not familiar with Mr. Alcantar and had no other contact or experience with Mr. Alcantar, other than these events,” the ruling said, noting that Bernagene’s identification of Alcantar was called into question due to his limited and dated contact with Alcantar on only two occasions, one of which occurred at night.

The panel also noted the lack of evidence in the case, which was cited in Hollander’s brief, and listed the following:

• The confidential informant’s name wasn’t disclosed and he didn’t testify.

• The undercover operation was supervised by Howell, but he didn’t witness the transaction.

• Howell monitored an audio transmission of the transaction for safety reasons, but it wasn’t recorded.

• Although investigators described Alcantar’s vehicle as a red SUV or a dark truck, there was no testimony about the license tag number or registration — “and thus no evidence tying Mr. Alcantar to the vehicle.”

• The transaction was arranged by cell phone, but there was no testimony or evidence about phone numbers or calls.

• Although the cocaine was paid for with $1,000 in marked currency, it was never recovered.