Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Florida State Categories







Middleton v State of Florida

Case No. 1D12-3659 (FL Dist. 1 Ct. App., Feb. 7, 2014)

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant claims his retrial and conviction for first-degree murder with a firearm violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because he was acquitted on that charge at his prior trial when the jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder with a firearm. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court adjudicate and sentence appellant for the lesser included offense of second-degree murder with a firearm.

In June 2000, appellant was tried for first-degree murder with a firearm before a twelve-person jury. After deliberations began, the state moved to strike a juror for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction. The trial court granted the motion and asked appellant whether he wanted to proceed with just eleven jurors or replace the stricken juror with a previously dismissed alternate juror. Appellant decided to proceed with an eleven-person jury, which returned a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of second-degree murder with a firearm. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison with a three-year mandatory minimum, which this court affirmed without opinion on direct appeal. Middleton v. State, 833 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (table).

Later, appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief that claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he had the option of moving for a mistrial when the juror was dismissed after deliberations had begun. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, this court concluded trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise appellant of his right to move for a mistrial and remanded with directions that the trial court determine whether appellant demonstrated the requisite prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Middleton v. State, 984 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
 

 

Judge(s): Ronald V. Swanson
Jurisdiction: Florida Court of Appeals, First District
Trial Court Judge(s)
Joel Boles

 
Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Robert Benton, II
Timothy Osterhaus
Ronald Swanson

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Barbara Busharis Office of the Florida Public Defender Second Judicial Circuit
Nancy Daniels Office of the Florida Public Defender Second Judicial Circuit

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Pamela Bondi Office of the Florida Attorney General
Samuel Perrone Office of the Florida Attorney General

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
third, case law clearly distinguishes between the validity of verdicts of for a mistrial when the juror was dismissed after deliberations had begun. after trial court adjudicate and sentence appellant for the lesser included offense of second, the state’s position relies on the theory that a jury verdict of second-degree murder with a firearm. observed that “[t]he acceptance of a guilty plea to lesser included offenses while roy howard middleton or replace the stricken juror with a previously dismissed alternate juror. appellant several reasons, we are unable to agree with the contention that the implied demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of a new trial would have acquittal in this case was a nullity. on remand, the trial court found appellant would have requested a mistrial if that resulted in acquittal after his convictions on other charges were reversed and fong foo v. united states, 369 u.s. 141, 143 (1962)). for instance, the moody, 931 so. 2d at 181. moreover, the united states supreme court has twelve-person jury retroactively nullified the jury’s implied acquittal on the charge appellant, firearm. we agree. accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the decided to proceed with an eleven-person jury, which returned a guilty verdict on holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. on appeal, this the trial court reduce appellant’s conviction to the lesser included offense of in june 2000, appellant was tried for first-degree murder with a firearm louisiana supreme court in state v. langley, 958 so. 2d 1160, 1169 (la. 2007). he had known that was an available option, but concluded appellant failed to benton, j., concurs; osterhaus, j., dissents with opinion. swanson, j. on remand, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the first-degree murder middleton v. state, 833 so. 2d 124 (fla. 1st dca 2002) (table). second-degree murder with a firearm was an implied acquittal on the charged _____________________________/ was not foreclosed by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy court has noted, the concept of “structural error” was developed to determine w. joel boles, judge. proceeded to trial before a twelve-person jury, which returned a verdict finding and federal constitutions. the trial court denied the motion, concluding jeopardy legal dictionary); moody, 931 so. 2d at 177-82 (rejecting claim that jury v. washington, 466 u.s. 668 (1984). middleton v. state, 984 so. 2d 522 (fla. 1st before a twelve-person jury. after deliberations began, the state moved to strike a acquittal and verdicts of conviction. unlike verdicts of conviction, verdicts of jeopardy. however, we agree with the state that the proper disposition is not to double jeopardy because he was acquitted on that charge at his prior trial when the due to incurable structural error in the trial proceeding, returning appellant and the right to move for a mistrial and remanded with directions that the trial court citing green v. united states, 355 u.s. 184 (1957). however, relying on judge reverse and remand for a new trial, but to reverse and remand with directions that reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding appellant satisfied the prejudice mandatory minimum, which this court affirmed without opinion on direct appeal. defender, tallahassee, for appellant. thomas’ concurring opinion in middleton, the state responds that the implied second-degree murder with a firearm and resentence him accordingly. see morris state of florida, defendant and his codefendants were tried on a fatally defective indictment). first district, state of florida whether an error is subject to a harmless error analysis, not whether an acquittal is in the district court of appeal prong of strickland by showing he was deprived for his right to a mistrial. 5 the majority in middleton, judge thomas’ opinion is not binding on this court. for charge on the ground that it was barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the state appellant guilty of first-degree murder as charged and also finding that appellant appellant’s capital murder trial, which was rendered null and void where appellant appellee. first-degree murder with a firearm violated the constitutional prohibition against motion and asked appellant whether he wanted to proceed with just eleven jurors their original position. specifically, appellant’s case was not terminated by a because jeopardy did not attach to the verdict of an eleven-person jury in i respectfully dissent for reasons elaborated in the concurring opinion in so. 2d 966 (ala. 2007), and our sister court, the second district court of appeal, first, a verdict by an eleven-person jury is not a nullity in a capital murder guilty and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. this v. jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder with a not final until time expires to disposition thereof if filed adjudicated guilty and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison with a three-year id. at 362-65 (thomas, j., concurring). (1896) (holding that jeopardy attached to acquittal on murder charge even though jeopardy] implications of an ‘implied acquittal’ which results from a verdict was set aside due to juror error or misconduct. see plate v. alaska, 925 p.2d 1057, 8 appellant’s successful collateral challenge to the voluntariness of his waiver of a opinion filed february 7, 2014. been any different in light of the weight of the evidence. on appeal, this court (1969) (holding that jeopardy attached to acquittal on larceny charge even though see state v. griffith, 561 so. 2d 528 (fla. 1990). we simply cannot conclude that 3 verdict for second-degree murder was set aside due to a juror’s consultation with a 493, 501-02 (1984). deliberations); niemand v. dist. ct., 684 p.2d 931 (colo. 1984) (recognizing based on the above, we conclude appellant’s retrial and conviction for first- determine whether appellant demonstrated the requisite prejudice under strickland court concluded trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise appellant of his defendant was tried on a defective indictment); united states v. ball, 163 u.s. 662 dca 2007). convicting a defendant on lesser included offenses rendered by a jury charged to used, carried, or displayed a firearm. the trial court then adjudicated appellant did not attach to the prior jury verdict because it was null and void. the case then acquittal on the charge of first-degree murder with a firearm was rendered a nullity an appeal from the circuit court for escambia county. 4 of first-degree murder. it also has been rejected by the alabama supreme court in ex parte gillentine, 980 consider both greater and lesser included offenses.” ohio v. johnson, 467 u.s. the lesser included offense of second-degree murder with a firearm. appellant was declaration of mistrial, but ended with an implied acquittal on the charge of first- file motion for rehearing and concurring). pamela jo bondi, attorney general, and samuel a. perrone, assistant attorney nancy a. daniels, public defender, and barbara j. busharis, assistant public case no. 1d12-3659 counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he had the option of moving jr., in this direct criminal appeal, appellant claims his retrial and conviction for valid for double jeopardy purposes. gillentine, 980 so. 2d at 970-71. 7 degree murder, which triggered the protection of the double jeopardy clause. see middleton v. state, 41 so. 3d 357, 362-65 (fla. 1st dca 2010) (thomas, j. in moody v. state, 931 so. 2d 177 (fla. 2d dca 2006). as the alabama supreme offense of first-degree murder with a firearm for purposes of double jeopardy, because the trial court improperly substituted an alternate juror after the jury began acquittal cannot be challenged no matter how “egregiously erroneous.” moody, finally, appellant’s position is distinguishable from defendants who acquittal can be “nullified” due to so-called “structural error.” this broad did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to trial by a twelve-person jury. united states supreme court has recognized jury acquittals even though the misconduct nullified the jury’s verdicts of acquittal). appellant asserts his prior conviction for the lesser included offense of 931 so. 2d at 180-81 (quoting sanabria v. united states, 437 u.s. 54, 75 (1978), defendant’s implied acquittal on first-degree murder charge even though the jury juror for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction. the trial court granted the v. mathews, 475 u.s. 237 (1986). reversed and remanded with directions. successfully obtain a mistrial or move to vacate their pleas and are then returned to proceedings were determined to be invalid. see benton v. maryland, 396 u.s. 784 degree murder with a firearm violated the constitutional prohibition against double similarly, state courts have recognized acquittals even though the jury’s verdict 6 opinion, judge thomas observed that appellant’s retrial for first-degree murder 1062 (alaska ct. app. 1996) (holding that defendant could not be retried on charge general, tallahassee, for appellee. charges on the greater offenses remain pending . . . has none of the [double appeal followed. “nullification” theory, which was announced by the louisiana court of appeal in 2 state to the status quo ante. since the double jeopardy issue was not addressed by case because defendants can waive their statutory right to a twelve-person jury. later, appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief that claimed trial middleton v. state, 41 so. 3d 357, 359-62 (fla. 1st dca 2010). in a concurring osterhaus, j., dissenting. state v. langley, 896 so. 2d 200 (la. ct. app. 2004), has been disapproved by the


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise