kruidbos - cheryl peek

7/28/2019 Kruidbos - Cheryl Peek

1/34


2/34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CI TATI ONSI . PRELI M NARY STATEMENT11. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS111. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTI V. ARGUMENT

I SSUE ICERTI FI ED QUESTI ON/ I SSUE PRESENTEDWHETHER A FI RST DEGREE FELONY PUNI SHABLEBY A TERM OF YEARS NOT EXCEEDI NG LI FEI MPRI SONMENT I S SUBJ ECT TO AN ENHANCEDSENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVI SI ONS OFTHE HABI TUAL FELONY OFFENDER STATUTE?I SSUE I 1THE STATE' S AND TRI AL COURT' S ACTI ONSI N DI SM SSI NG THE FI RST J URY POOLDEPRI VED PETI TI ONER OF HI S RI GHTS TODUE PROCESS, TO A FAI RLY AND RANDOMLYSELECTED J URY, TO BE PRESENT AT ALLCRI TI CAL STAGES OF THE PROCEEDI NGS,AND TO THE ASSI STANCE OF COUNSEL.

V. CONCLUSI ONCERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

PAGEi

i i - i i i124

5

14

2122


3/34


4/34

TABLE OF CITATIONSCASESSwain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 218-19 (1965)Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975)United States v. Cronic, 477 U . S . 648 (1984)West v. State, case no. 90-2208 (Fla. 1st DCAAugust 7, 1991)STATUTESSection 775.021(1), Florida StatutesSection 775.081(1), Florida StatutesSection 775.082(3)(b), Florida StatutesSection 775.084(4),(5), Florida StatutesSection 810.02(2), Florida StatutesSection 812.13(2)(a), Florida StatutesOTHER AUTHORITIES49 Fla. Jur. 2d Statutes S195

PAGE( S)1816201

999

8191212

9


5/34

J OHN WEST,Pet i t i oner ,

V.STATE OF FLORI DA,

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORI DA

CASE NO 78, 570

Respondent .

PETI TI ONER' S BRI EF ON THE MERI TSI PRELI M NARY STATEMENT

Pet i t i oner seeks revi ew f romt he deci si on of t he Fi r stDi st r i ct Cour t of Appeal i n West v. St ate, case no. 90- 2208( Fl a. 1st DCA August 7, 1991) ( copy at t ached as an appendi x) .The l ead case on t hi s i ssue i s Burdi ck v. St ate, 16 FLWD1963(Fl a. 1st DCA J ul y 25, 1991) ( en banc) , i n whi ch t he di st r i ctcour t hel d t hat def endant s convi ct ed of a f i r s t degr ee f el onypuni shabl e by l i f e coul d be sent enced as habi t ual of f enders.

A one vol ume record on appeal w l l be ref er red t o as "R, "f ol l owed by t he appropr i ate page number i n parent heses. Aseven vol ume t ranscr i pt w l l be ref er red t o as ' IT.' '

-1-


6/34

I1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTSBy i nf or mat i on f i l ed i n Duval Count y, pet i t i oner was

char ged wi t h t wo count s of sexual bat t er y, and one count eachof ar med bur gl ar y, ar med ki dnappi ng, and ar med r obber y ( R 81).The cause pr oceeded to j ur y t r i al on Febr uar y 5-8, 1990, and att he concl usi on t her eof pet i t i oner was f ound gui l t y of one countof sexual bat t er y, ar med bur gl ar y, f al se i mpr i sonment as al esser of f ense, and ar med r obber y ( R 104-108).

Af t er t he def ense mot i on f or new t r i al had been f i l ed, anass i s t ant s t at e at t or ney f i l ed t he f ol l owi ng "Di sc l osur e ofI nf or mat i on to t he Cour t " :

The St at e of F l or i da, by and t hr ought he under si gned Assi st ant St at e At t or ney,f i l es t hi s Mot i on wi t h the Cour t t o gi venot i ce t o t he Cour t and Def ense Counsel oft he f ol l owi ng f ac ts :1. On Febr uar y 5, 1990, t he abover ef er enced case was set f or t r i al .2. J ur y sel ect i on was t o commence i nCour t r oom 9 on Febr uar y 5, 1990, s hor t l ybef or e noon.3 . As t he under si gned counsel l ef tCour t at t hat t i me, t hi s counsel not edt hat t he j ur y panel assembl ed out si deCour t r oom 9 di d not appear to be a hi ghl yeducat ed j ur y. A wel l educat ed j ur y wasdesi r abl e based on t he compl i cat ed andt echni cal nat ur e of t he pendi ng case.4. The under si gned counsel t henappr oached t he bench and st at ed tot he Cour t t hat an emer gency exi st ed t hatr equi r ed at t ent i on upst ai r s . Theunder si gned al so st at ed t hat t he paneldi d not appear t o be ver y desi r abl e.5. Al t hough, i n f ac t , an essent i alwi t ness had not yet cont act ed t he St at eAt t or ney' s Of f i ce i ndi cat i ng t hat t hewi t ness woul d be r eady and avai l abl ef or t r i al , i t was an over st at ement f ort he under si gned counsel to t er m such asan " emer gency" t o t he Cour t . Thi sover st at ement was made wi t h t he i nt ent

-2-


7/34

t hat t he panel may not be used.6. Al t hough t he under si gned counselwas not t he pr osecut or assi gned to handl et he above- r ef er enced case, t hi s Cour tdi sm ssed t he wai t i ng panel based on t her epr esent at i on t hat t her e was anemer gency. The Cour t t ook a l unch hourr ecess and cal l ed anot her panel to t hecour t r oom f or sel ec t i on. A j ur y was t hensel ect ed f r om t hat panel by Tony J enki nsand Ant hony Ber r y, t he pr osecut or s assi gnedt o t he case.The under si gned Counsel di scl oses t hi si nf or mat i on t o bot h Def ense Counsel andt he Cour t as an of f i cer of t he cour t sot hat al l par t i es i nvol ved wi l l be awar e oft he under si gned Counsel ' s act i ons i n t heabove- r ef er enced mat t er .ED AUSTI NSTATE ATTORNEYBy : / S/Cher yl PeekBar Number 0272833Assi st ant St at e At t or ney

( R 134- 35) .I n r esponse to t hi s di sc l osur e, def ense counsel f i l ed an

amended mot i on f or new t r i al , ar gui ng t hat Mr . Peek' s act i onshad deni ed pet i t i oner a f ai r t r i al and t hat t hose act i ons wer eequi val ent t o t he St at e usi ng an unl i m t ed number of per empt or ychal l enges, i n vi ol at i on of due pr ocess ( R 139- 40) . TheSt at e' s r esponse t o t he mot i on f or new t r i al agr eed t hat Ms.Peek' s act i ons const i t ut ed m sconduct , but ar gued t hat t hoseact i ons di d not ent i t l e pet i t i oner t o a new t r i al ( R 145- 47) . 1

' There i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecord t hat Mr . West ' sdef ense at t or ney knew at t he t i me of t he j ur y pool ' s di s m s s alt hat t he f i r s t j ur y pool was di sm ssed, or knew that the( Foot not e Cont i nued)- 3-


8/34

A di f f er ent j udge was assi gned t o hear t hi s por t i on of t hemot i on f or new t r i al ( R 143) , and t he mot i on was deni ed ( R148) .

The cour t i mposed t he f ol l owi ng habi t ual of f ender sent enc-es : l i f e i n pr i son f or t he sexual bat t er y , ar med bur gl ar y, andar med robbery: and 10 year s on t he f al se i mpr i sonment ( R172-76).

A t i mel y not i ce of appeal was f i l ed ( R 192), and t hePubl i c Def ender of t he Second J udi c i al Ci r cui t was desi gnat edto r epr esent pet i t i oner . On appeal , pet i t i oner ar gued t hat hecoul d not be cl assi f i ed as an habi t ual of f ender on t he ar medbur gl ar y and ar med r obber y char ges. The l ower t r i bunal di s-agr eed, on aut hor i t y of Bur di ck v. St at e, supr a, and cer t i f i edt he quest i on. Appendi x at 6-7.

Pet i t i oner al so ar gued t hat he coul d not be sent enced asan habi t ual of f ender on t he sexual bat t er y char ge, and t hel ower t r i bunal agr eed. Appendi x at 7.

( Foot not e Cont i nued)di sm ssal was t he r esul t of ex par t e communi cat i ons by t heSt at e wi t h t he t r i al j udge, or knew why t he j ur y pool wasdi sm ssed. I ndeed, t he St at e' s "di sc l osur e of I nf or mat i on t ot he Cour t " st at es t hat t he pur pose of t hat document was t o" gi ve not i ce t o t he Cour t and Def ense Counsel " of t he act i onsl eadi ng t o t he j ur y pool ' s di sm ssal ( R 134) ( emphas i s added) .Ther e i s no ment i on of t he di sm ssal of t he f i r s t j ur y pool i nt he t r ansc r i pt of t he j ur y sel ec t i on ( See T 17- 58) . Thus, t heSt at e' s cont ent i ons i n i t s r esponse t o t he def ense amendedmot i on f or new t r i al t hat , i nt er al i a, def ense counsel di d notobj ect to t he di sm ssal of t he j ur y pool and di d not obj ect t ot he manner i n whi ch t he j ur y was chosen do not di s pose of t hi si ssue. Def ense counsel cannot obj ect t o act i ons of whi ch he i sunawar e. -

- 4-


9/34


10/34

I11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTThe habi t ual of f ender st at ut e does not per m t t hat sanc-

t i on f or one convi ct ed of a f i r st degr ee f el ony puni shabl e byl i f e. That cat egor y of c r i me was spec i f i cal l y exc l uded f r omt he st at ut e by t he Legi s l at ur e. Penal s t at ut es must be st r i c t -l y const r ued i n f avor of t he def endant .

Al t hough t he bur gl ar y and r obber y st at ut es c i t e t o t hehabi t ual of f ender s t at ut e as a poss i bl e penal t y, t hat c i t at i oni s of no ef f ec t wher e f i r s t degr ee f el oni es puni shabl e by l i f ewer e expr ess l y om t t ed f r om t he habi t ual of f ender s t at ut e.

Thi s Cour t shoul d r ever se the dec i s i on of t he F i r s t Di s-t r i c t Cour t of Appeal bel ow, answer t he cer t i f i ed quest i on i nt he negat i ve, and r emand f or r esent enci ng under t he gui del i nes.

The deci s i on of t he l ower cour t , whi ch deni ed pet i t i oner anew t r i al , even i n l i ght of t he s ta t e' s adm t t edl y out r ageousand r epr ehensi bl e conduct , shoul d al so be r ever sed. Theac t i ons of t he pr osecut or i n l ur i ng t he j udge i nt o di sm ss i ngt he j ur y pool on a pr et ext t hat some emer gency exi st ed vi ol at edpet i t i oner ' s r i ght s i n many ways. The di sm ssal of t he pooland t he ex par t e manner i n whi ch i t was done wer e f undament al l yunf ai r . A new t r i al i s r equi r ed.

-6-


11/34

I V ARGUMENTI SSUE ICERTI FI ED QUESTI ON/ I SSUE PRESENTEDWHETHER A FI RST DEGREE FELONY PUNI SHABLE BYA TERM OF YEARS NOT EXCEEDI NG LI FE I MPRI S-ONMENT I S SUBJ ECT TO AN ENHANCED SENTENCEPURSUANT TO THE PROVI SI ONS OF THE HABI TUALFELONY OFFENDER STATUTE?

The chr onol ogi cal hi s t or y of t hi s i s sue i n t he Fi r s tDi s t r i ct i s i nt er est i ng, but conf us i ng. I n J ohnson v. St at e,568 So. 2d 519 ( Fl a. 1st DCA 1990), t he cour t hel d t hat t he 1988r evi sed habi t ual of f ender s t at ut e di d not appl y t o l i f e f el o-ni es because l i f e f el oni es wer e not i nc l uded wi t hi n t he st at -ut e. I n Ghol st on v. St at e, 16 FLW D46 ( Fl a. 1st DCA December17, 1990), t he cour t hel d that i t di d not appl y t o f i r s t degr eef el oni es puni shabl e by l i f e because t hey t oo wer e not i ncl udedi n t he st at ut e. 2

I n Bur di ck v. St at e, supr a, t he cour t , i n an en bancdeci si on, r eceded f r omGhol st on and hel d t hat t he habi t ualof f ender s t at ut e di d appl y t o f i r s t degr ee f el oni es puni shabl eby l i f e, even t hough t hey wer e not i ncl uded i n t he st at ut e. 3

F i nal l y, i n t he i ns t ant case, t he cour t r eaf f i r med i t sJ ohnson pos i t i on and hel d t hat l i f e f el oni es ar e not subj ect t o

21n anot her cont ext , t he cour t hel d t hat a f i r st degr eef el ony puni shabl e by l i f e was pr oper l y scor ed as a l i f e f el onyon a sent enci ng gui del i nes scor esheet . J ones v. St at e, 546So. 2d 1134 ( Fl a. 1st DCA 1989).upon hi s v i ews i n t hi s br i ef .3J udge Er v i n di ssent ed, and pet i t i oner wi l l r el y heavi l y

-7-


12/34

t he habi t ual of f ender sent enci ng because t hey ar e not i ncl udedwi t hi n t he st at ut e, and because a l i f e sent ence i s al r eadyavai l abl e as a penal t y.

Pet i t i oner makes t he f ol l owi ng obser vat i ons about t hi sconf us i ng hi s t or i cal pi c tur e: usual l y r ef er ees shoul d st i ckwi t h the f i r st cal l t hey make, because i t i s most l i kel y t hecor r ect one; and t he same st at ut e cannot be r ead t wo di f f er entways.

The st ar t i ng poi nt i n any st at ut or y const r uct i on quest i oni s t he st at ut e i t sel f . The habi t ual of f ender st at ut e pr ovi dest hat once a def endant i s f ound t o be an habi t ual of f ender or avi ol ent habi t ual of f ender , t he f ol l owi ng penal t i es appl y:

( 4) ( a) The cour t , i n conf or m t y wi t h t hepr ocedur e est abl i shed i n subsect i on ( 3 ) ,shal l sent ence t he habi t ual f el ony of f enderas f ol l ows:1. I n t he case of a f el ony of t he f i r s tdegr ee, f or l i f e.2. I n t he case of a f el ony of t he seconddegr ee, f or a t er m of year s not exceedi ng30.3 . I n t he case of a f el ony of t he t hi r ddegr ee, f or a t er m of year s not exceedi ng10.( b) The cour t , i n conf or m t y wi t h thepr ocedur e est abl i shed i n subsect i on ( 3 ) ,may s ent ence t he habi t ual vi ol ent f el onyof f ender as f ol l ows:1. I ndegr eenot be

t he case of a f el ony of t he f i r s t, or l i f e, and such of f ender shal lel i qi bl e f or r el ease f or 15 years.2. I n t he- case of a f el ony of t he seconddegr ee, f or a t er m of year s not exceedi ng30, and such of f ender shal l not be el i gi bl ef or r el ease f or 10 year s.3 . I n t he case of a f el ony of t he thi r ddegr ee, f or a t er m of year s not exceedi ng10, and such of f ender shal l not be el i gi bl ef or r el ease f or 5 year s.

-8-


13/34

Sect i on 775. 084(4) , (5) , Fl or i da St at ut es ( emphasi s added) .Nowhere i n t he habi t ual of f ender st at ut e i t sel f does t he

cat egory of cr i me at i ssue her e, f i r st degr ee f el ony puni shabl eby l i f e, appear . Thus, t he Legi sl at ure' s om ssi on of t hi sdegr ee of cr i me f romt he st at ut e evi nces i ts cl ear i nt ent toexcl ude thi s cat egor y, especi al l y si nce such cr i mes ar e al readypuni shabl e by l i f e i n Sect i on 775. 082(3)(b), Fl or i da St at ut es.

I n addi t i on, i t must be remembered t hat i n const rui ngpenal st at ut es, t he most f avorabl e const r uct i on to the accusedmust be used. 49 Fl a. J ur . 2d St at ut es 5195; Sect i on775. 021(1) , Fl or i da St at ut es:

The provi si ons of t hi s code and of f ensesdef i ned by ot her st at ut es shal l be st r i ct l yconst rued; when the l anguage i s suscept i bl eof di f f er i ng const ruct i ons, i t shal l beconst rued most f avorabl y t o the accused.Thi s Cour t r ecent l y appl i ed these pr i nci pl es i n Per ki ns v.St at e, 576 So. 2d 1310 ( Fl a. 1991) t o f i nd t hat cocai ne t raf -f i cki ng i s not a " f or ci bl e f el ony" because i t was not def i nedas such by t he Legi sl at ure.

The l ower t r i bunal ' s r esponse to t hi s argument i n Burdi ckwas bot h predi ct abl e and super f i ci al . The cour t f ound t hat af i r st degr ee f el ony puni shabl e by l i f e i s real l y a f i r st degr eef el ony, and so subj ect to t he habi t ual of f ender penal t y. Thecour t di d not ment i on i t s cont radi ctory hol di ng i n J ones,supr a, not e 1, but merel y ci t ed t o Sect i on 775. 081(1) , Fl or i daSt at ut es, f or t he proposi t i on t hat f i r st degr ee f el oni espuni shabl e by l i f e do not exi st as a separate degree of cr i me.

-9-


14/34

J udge Er vi n' s di ssent i n Burdi ck set s f or t h t he l egi sl a-t i ve hi st ory and the proper anal ysi s:

Turni ng t o the second poi nt , t hat t he l owercour t er red i n i mposi ng an enhanced l i f esent ence upon appel l ant because t he sub-st ant i ve under l yi ng of f ense f or whi ch hewas convi ct ed i s puni shabl e by a maxi mumpenal t y of l i f e i mpr i sonment , I agr ee andwoul d reverse. I n my j udgment i t i si l l ogi cal to assume t hat t he l egi sl at urei nt ended f or a t r i al j udge t o have theaut hor i t y t o i mpose an enhanced sentence ofl i f e upon one who was al r eady subj ect to amaxi mum sent ence of l i f e i mpr i sonment f ort he of f ense f or whi ch he or she was con-vi cted. My concl usi on i s support ed by thel egi sl at i ve hi story of bot h sect i ons775. 082 and 775. 084, Fl or i da St at ut es.Sect i on 775. 082(3) (b) , Fl or i da St at ut es( 1987) , provi des t wo met hods of puni shi ngpersons convi cted of f el oni es of t he f i r s tdegree: "[ Bl y a t ermof i mpr i sonment notexceedi ng 30 year s or , when speci f i cal l yprovi ded by st atut e, by i mpr i sonment of at e r m of year s not exceedi ng l i f e i mpr i son-ment[ . ]" See al so J ones V. St at e, 546So. 2d 1134, 1135 ( Fl a. 1st DCA 1989). Whent he 1971 l egi sl at i ve sessi on enacted i n t hesame l egi sl at i ve act sect i on 775. 082,est abl i shi ng penal t i es f or var i ous cat ego-r i es of cr i mes, as wel l as sect i on 775. 084,creat i ng t he habi t ual of f ender cl assi f i ca-t i ons, t he t ri al court ' s di scret i on t oi mpose a maxi mum sent ence w t hi n the r angespeci f i ed f or al l noncapi t al f el oni es wasl ef t uni mpai red and remai ned so unt i lOct ober 1, 1983, t he ef f ect i ve dat e ofgui del i ne sent enci ng.Addi t i onal l y, dur i ng the speci al sessi on ofNovember 1972, t he l egi sl ature amendedsect i on 775. 081 by desi gnat i ng " l i f ef el ony" as an addi t i onal cat egor y to t hel i st of f el oni es, and amended sect i on775. 082 by addi ng subsect i on (4) (a) ,est abl i shi ng as t he penal t y f or a l i f ef el ony "a t ermof i mpr i sonment i n t he st at epr i son f or l i f e, or f or a t ermof year s notl ess t han t hi r t y. " Ch. 72- 724, Sect i ons1, 2, Laws of Fl a. I n 1983, the penal t y f or

-10-


15/34

a l i f e f el ony was amended, pr ovi di ng f orl i f e f el oni es comm t t ed bef ore Oct ober 1,1983, a termof i mpr i sonment f or l i f e or at ermof years not l ess t han t hi r t y, and f orl i f e f el oni es comm t t ed on or af t er Oct ober1, 1983, a termof i mpr i sonment f or l i f e ora ter mof i mpr i sonment not exceedi ng f ort yyears. Ch. 83- 87, Sect i on 1, Laws of Fl a.The obvi ous i nt ent of such amendment was t omake Sect i on 775. 082((3) (a) , Fl or i daSt at ut es ( 1983) , consi st ent w t h the new ycreat ed gui del i ne sent enci ng, provi di ng atSect i on 921. 001(4) (a) , Fl or i da St at ut es( 1983) , t hat t he gui del i nes wer e to beappl i ed t o al l f el oni es comm t t ed on oraf t er Oct ober 1, 1983, except capi t alf el oni es, and t o al l f el oni es comm t t edpr i or t o October 1, 1983, except capi t alf el oni es and l i f e f el oni es, when sent enci ngoccur red subsequent t o such date and t hedef endant chose to be sent enced under t hegui del i nes. Ch. 83- 87, Sect i on 2, Laws ofFl a.Even though t he l egi sl at ure as ear l y as1972 creat ed t he cl assi f i cat i on of l i f ef el oni es, i t never amended the habi t ualf el ony of f ender st at ut e to i ncl ude enhancedsent enci ng f or l i f e f el oni es. As pr evi ous-l y stat ed i n t hi s di ssent , t he l egi sl at urewas no doubt aware t hat t he t r i al cour t s'di scret i on t o i mpose sent ence f or t hesubst ant i ve of f ense w t hi n t he maxi mumrange remai ned unaf f ect ed unt i l t he cr ea-t i on of gui del i ne sent enci ng. Consequent -l y, t he resul t r eached by t he maj or i t y i sthat persons who comm t sever e f el onyof f enses cat egor i zed as l i f e f el oni es af t erOct ober 1, 1983 ar e el i gi bl e f or gui del i nesent enci ng, wher eas persons such as appel -l ant who comm t f i r st degr ee f el oni espuni shabl e f or a t ermof year s not exceed-i ng l i f e i mpr i sonment are deni ed suchconsi der at i on upon bei ng cl assi f i ed ashabi t ual f el ons, because sect i on775. 084(4) (e) excl udes habi t ual f el onysent ences f r omgui del i ne sent enci ng andot her benef i t s. My t hesi s i s, of cour se,not t hat t he l egi sl at ure coul d not val i dl ymake t hi s ki nd of di st i nct i on -- onl y thati t di d not i nt end t o make i t .

-11-


16/34

Bur di ck, 16 FLWat D1965 ( Er vi n, J . , di ssent i ng) ( f oot not esomtted).

The st at e al so ar gued bel ow t hat because t he st atut esdef i ni ng cr i mes as f i r st degr ee f el oni es puni shabl e by l i f eref er t o the habi t ual of f ender st at ut e as a possi bl e penal t y, 4the Legi sl atur e i nt ended f or t hat enhanced puni shment t o appl y.Agai n, J udge Er vi n' s di ssent i n Burdi ck set s f or t h t he l egi sl a-t i ve hi st ory and t he proper anal ysi s:

The ref erence i n sect i on 810. 02(2) t osect i on 775. 084 appear s i n al l noncapi t alf el ony and m sdemeanor st at ut es l i st edunder Ti t l e XLVI of t he Fl or i da St at ut es.Thus, even t hough of f enses whi ch ar edesi gnat ed l i f e f el oni es were never madesubj ect to enhanced sent enci ng under t hehabi t ual f el ony stat ut e, r ef erence to suchst at ut e i s nonet hel ess made w t hi n eachst at ut e pr escr i bi ng the penal t y f or l i f ef el oni es. See, e. g. , Sect i on787. 01(3)(a)5. , Fl a. Stat . ( 1980) ( ki dnap-pi ng) ; Sect i on 794. 011( 3) , Fl a. Stat .( 1989) ( sexual bat tery) . Addi t i onal l y,al t hough sect i on 775. 084 had f or merl yprovi ded enhanced sentenci ng for habi t ualmsdemeanant s, t he l egi sl at ur e, ef f ect i veOct ober 1, 1988, del et ed the pr ovi si onsrel at i ng t o habi t ual m sdemeanant s. SeeCh. 88- 131, Sect i ons 6, 9, Laws of Fl a. I nt he 1989 Fl or i da St atut es, however t hel egi sl at ure f ai l ed to del et e ref er ences tosect i on 775. 084 i n provi di ng puni shment sf or speci f i ed msdemeanors. See, e.g. ,Sect i on 784. 011(2) , Fl a. Stat . ( 1989)( assaul t ) , Sect i on 784. 03(2) , Fl a. Stat .(1989) (bat tery) . Consi der i ng t he l egi sl a-t ure' s whol esal e i ndi scri m nat e r ef er enceto t he habi t ual of f ender st at ut e t hr oughoutthe Fl or i da St at ut es, many of whi ch ar e

4e.g. , t he st at ut e def i ni ng armed r obber y, Sect i on812. 13(2) (a) , Fl or i da St atut es, and t he one def i ni ng ar medbur gl ar y, Sect i on 810. 02(2) , Fl or i da St at ut es.- 12-


17/34

i nappl i c abl e, I do not consi der t hat t hest at e can t ake any com or t i n t he r ef er encemade i n sect i on 810.02(2) to sec t i on775.084.Bur di ck, 16 FLWat D1965 ( Er vi n, J . , di ss ent i ng) .Thi s Cour t shoul d adopt J udge Er vi n' s wel l - r easoneddi ssent i ng opi ni on and hol d t hat f i r s t degr ee f el oni espuni shabl e by l i f e wer e not i nt ended by t he Legi sl at ur e t o besubj ect t o habi t ual of f ender c l ass i f i cat i on.

-13-


18/34

I SSUE I 1THE STATE' S AND TRI AL COURT' S ACTI ONSI N DI SM SSI NG THE FI RST J URY POOLDEPRI VED PETI TI ONER OF HI S RI GHTS TODUE PROCESS, TO A FAI RLY AND RANDOMLYSELECTED J URY, TO BE PRESENT AT ALLCRI TI CAL STAGES OF THE PROCEEDI NGS,AND TO THE ASSI STANCE OF COUNSEL.

Af t er pet i t i oner ' s t r i al was compl et ed and hi s mot i on f ornew t r i al was f i l ed, t he St at e r eveal ed that an assi st ant st at eat t or ney had engi neered t he di sm ssal of t he f i r st j ury poolf romwhi ch pet i t i oner ' s j ury was to be sel ected. Bel i evi ngt hat t he members of t he f i r st j ury pool l acked t he sophi st i ca-t i on and educat i on necessary to understand t he sci ent i f i cevi dence i nvol ved i n the case, t he assi st ant st at e at t or neyprevai l ed upon t he j udge to di sm ss t he pool on t he pr et extt hat an emergency had ar i sen i n t he St at e At t or ney' s Of f i ce.Thi s r evel at i on was made i n a " Di scl osur e of I nf ormat i on t o theCourt ":

The St at e of Fl or i da, by and t hr ought he undersi gned Assi st ant St at e At t or ney,f i l es t hi s Mot i on w t h the Cour t to gi venot i ce to the Cour t and Def ense Counsel oft he f ol l ow ng f act s:1. On Februar y 5, 1990, t he aboveref erenced case was set f or t r i al .2. J ury sel ect i on was t o commence i nCour t r oom9 on Febr uary 5, 1990, shor t l ybef ore noon.3 . As t he under si gned counsel l ef tCour t at that t i me, t hi s counsel not edt hat t he j ury panel assembl ed out si de

Cour t r oom9 di d not appear to be a hi ghl yeducated j ury. A wel l educated j ury wasdesi rabl e based on t he compl i cated andt echni cal nat ure of t he pendi ng case.4. The undersi gned counsel t henappr oached the bench and st ated t ot he Cour t that an emergency exi st ed thatrequi red at t ent i on upstai r s. The-14-


19/34

undersi gned al so st at ed that t he paneldi d not appear t o be very desi r abl e.5. Al t hough, i n f act , an essent i alw t ness had not yet cont act ed t he St at eAt t or ney' s Of f i ce i ndi cat i ng t hat t hew t ness woul d be ready and avai l abl ef or t r i al , i t was an overst at ement f ort he under si gned counsel to t er msuch asan "emergency" t o t he Cour t . Thi soverst atement was made w t h t he i nt entt hat the panel may not be used.6. Al t hough t he undersi gned counselwas not t he pr osecut or assi gned to handl et he above- r ef er enced case, t hi s Cour tdi sm ssed t he wai t i ng panel based on therepr esent at i on t hat t here was anemergency. The Cour t t ook a l unch hourrecess and cal l ed anot her panel to t hecour t r oomf or sel ecti on. A j ury was t hensel ect ed f r omt hat panel by Tony J enki nsand Ant hony Berr y, t he prosecut ors assi gnedt o t he case.The under si gned Counsel di scl oses t hi si nf ormat i on t o bot h Def ense Counsel andt he Cour t as an of f i cer of t he cour t sot hat al l par t i es i nvol ved w l l be awar e oft he under si gned Counsel ' s act i ons i n t heabove- ref erenced mat t er .ED AUSTI NSTATE ATTORNEYBy: /s/Cheryl PeekBar Number 0272833Assi st ant St at e At t or ney

( R 134- 35) .I n response t o thi s di scl osure, def ense counsel f i l ed an

amended mot i on f or new t r i al , argui ng t hat Mr . Peek' s act i onshad deni ed pet i t i oner a f ai r t r i al and t hat t hose act i ons wer eequi val ent to t he St ate usi ng an unl i m t ed number of per empt orychal l enges, i n vi ol at i on of due process ( R 139- 40) . TheSt at e' s r esponse t o t he mot i on f or new t r i al agr eed t hat Ms.Peek' s act i ons const i t ut ed m sconduct , but ar gued t hat t hose

-15-


20/34

act i ons di d not ent i t l e pet i t i oner to a new t r i al ( R 145-47).A di f f er ent j udge was assi gned to hear t hi s por t i on of t hemot i on f or new t r i al ( R 143), and t he mot i on was deni ed ( R148).

The St at e' s and t r i al cour t ' s ac t i ons vi ol at ed pet i t i on-er ' s r i ght s i n myr i ad ways. The di sm ssal of t he j ur y pool andt he -x par t e manner i n whi ch t hat di sm ss al was accompl i shedwer e f undament al l y unf ai r , depr i vi ng pet i t i oner of due pr ocess.The di sm ssal of t he j ury pool vi t i at ed pet i t i oner ' s r i ght t o af ai r l y and r andom y sel ec ted j ur y, ef f ec t i vel y al l owi ng t heSt at e t o exer ci se an unl i m t ed number of per empt or y chal l enges.The di sm ssal of t he j ur y pool -- accompl i shed by -x par t ecommuni cat i ons bet ween t he St at e and t r i al cour t -- al so deni edpet i t i oner hi s f undament al r i ght s t o be pr esent at al l c r i t i cals t at es of hi s c r i m nal pr oceedi ngs and to t he assi st ance ofcounsel t hr oughout t hose cr i m nal pr oceedi ngs. A new t r i al i sr equi r ed.The r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al f or al l s er i ous cr i m nal of f ens ei s a f undament al si xt h amendment pr ot ect i on necessar y to ensur ef ai r ness i n cr i m nal pr oceedi ngs. See Duncan v. Loui s i ana, 391U. S. 145, 157-58 (1968). The r i ght to a j ury t r i al i nc l udest he r equi r ement t hat t he j ur y be dr awn f r oma r epr esent at i vecr oss- sect i on of t he communi t y. Tayl or v. Loui s i ana, 419 U.S.522, 530 (1975). The l ower cour t has expl ai ned how t he f ai rcr oss- sect i on r equi r ement i s met :

[ Tl he const i t ut i onal r equi r ement t hata j ur y be compr i sed of a f ai rcr oss- sect i on of t he communi t y i s-16-


21/34

met when t he sel ect i on pr ocess forsummoni nq j urors for i mpanel i ngoccur s ri ni i omy. St at e- v. Si l Ga,259 So. 2d 153, 163 ( Fl a. 1972) .Thi s r andomness i n sel ect i on orsummoni ng i s t hought t o assur e a"f ai r possi bi l i t y f or obt ai ni ng arepresent at i ve cross- sect i on oft he communi t y. " J ordan v. St at e,293 So. 2d 131, 134 ( Fl a. 2d DCA1974) ( ci t at i on omt t ed. )Carw se v. St at e, 454 So. 2d 707, 709 ( Fl a. 1st DCA 1984) . -eeal so ( "We admoni sh t r i al j udges to st r i ct l y obser ve a randomsel ect i on pr ocess i n t he sel ect i on of prospecti ve j uror s f r omt he j ury veni re. ") . I n Mr. West ' s case, the r andomness of j urysel ect i on was dest royed when t he St at e prevai l ed upon t he t r i alcour t t o di smss t he f i r st j ury pool .

As t he Uni t ed St ates Supreme Cour t has st at ed,--oi r di rei s essent i al t o the prot ecti on of a cr i mnal def endant ' s r i ghtto an i mpar t i al j ury.

Voi r--i re pl ays a cr i t i cal f unct i on i nassur i ng t he cr i m nal def endant t hathi s Si xth Amendment r i ght t o ani mpar t i al j ury w l l be honored. . . .[ Ll ack of adequat e--oi r di r e i mpai r s t hedef endant ' s r i ght t o exerci se perempt orychal l enges. . . .Rosal es- Lopez v. Uni t ed St ates, 451 U. S. 182, 188 ( 1981)

( ci t at i ons and f oot not e omt ted) . Adequat e--oi r di re i sessent i al t o t he ef f ect i ve use of perempt ory chal l enges, whi chi s a "necessar y part of t r i al by j ury":

The voi r di r e i n Amer i can t r i al s tendsto be extensi ve and probi ng, oper at i ngas a pr edi cat e f or t he exer ci se ofperempt ori es. . . . Al t hough "t her ei s not hi ng i n t he Const i t ut i on of t heUni t ed St ates whi ch requi r es the Congr ess[ or t he St at es] t o grant perempt ory--

- 17-


22/34

chal l enges, . . . nonet hel ess t hechal l enge i s " one of t he most i mport antof t he r i ght s secur ed t o the accused, ". . . The deni al or i mpai r ment of t her i ght i s rever si bl e er ror w t hout ashow ng of prej udi ce. . .Swai n v. Al abama, 380 U. S. 202, 218-19 (1965) ( ci t at i onsomt ted) . Her e, Mr. West ' s r i ght s t o an adequat e voi r di r e andt o the exerci se of perempt ory chal l enges wer e great l y i mpai red-- a subst ant i al por t i on of voi r di r e was ef f ect i vel y conducted

----t hout t he par t i ci pat i on of M. West or def ense counsel . The

St at e was perm t t ed to conduct a "voi r di r e" and det er m ne t hatthe pr ospect i ve j uror s wer e unaccept abl e, whi l e M. West and

--def ense counsel were precl uded f rompar t i ci pat i ng. "Thi sdoubl e st andard on t he par t of t he t r i al j udge amount ed to avi ol at i on of due process. " O' Connel l v. St at e, 480 So. 2d 1284,1287 ( Fl a. 1985). Thi s i s per se reversi bl e er r or , Swai n,requi r i ng a new t r i al .

-Not onl y were Mr. West ' s r i ght s to an adequate voi r di re-

and to t he exerci se of perempt or y chal l enges i mpai red, but al sothe St at e was ef f ect i vel y permt t ed to exer ci se an unl i m t ednumber of peremptor y chal l enge . ^ The l ower cour t has hel dthat a t r i al cour t i s not perm t t ed to grant t he St ate moreperempt ory chal l enges t han t he number aut hor i zed by r ul e.

5The St at e' s "Di scl osur e" st at ed t hat t he di smssal of t hej ury pool was sought because the j urors di d not appear to be"hi ghl y educat ed" ( R 134) . Thi s Cour t has l ong hel d that al i mted educat i on does not render a prospect i ve j uror " l egal l yobj ect i onal or unqual i f i ed to serve. " Rol l i ns v. St at e, 148So. 2d 274, 276 ( Fl a. 1963).-18-


23/34


24/34

assi st ance of counsel and the ef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel .-ee St r i ckl and v. Washi ngton, 466 U. S. 668 ( 1984) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Cr oni c, 477 U. S. 648 ( 1984) . Counsel cannot provi deassi st ance, much l ess ef f ect i ve assi st ance, when counsel i s notpermt t ed t o par t i ci pat e i n t he proceedi ngs. Here, nei t her Mr.West nor def ense counsel wer e pr esent at a cr i t i cal st age oft he proceedi ngs. The St ate was al l owed to obt ai n t he di smssalof the j ury pool because the St at e was not sat i sf i ed w t h thepool ' s member s -- t hi s was j ury sel ect i on, but nei t her Mr. Westnor def ense counsel wer e al l owed to par t i ci pat e.

The st at e' s and t r i al cour t ' s act i ons here wer e f undamen-tal l y unf ai r , depr i vi ng Mr. West of basi c due pr ocess r i ght s."[ Tl r i al s shoul d not be conduct ed i n a way t hat def endant hasgood reason f or t he bel i ef t hat he was depr i ved of f undament alri ghts. ' ' Rai nes v. St ate, 65 So. 2d 558, 559 ( Fl a. 1953) . Mr.West has ampl e reason to bel i eve that t he conduct of hi s tr i aldepr i ved hi mof numer ous f undament al r i ght s. A new t r i al i smandated.

-20-


25/34

V CONCLUSI ONBased upon t he f or egoi ng argument , r easoni ng, and ci t at i on

of aut hor i t y, pet i t i oner r equest s that t hi s Cour t answer t hecer t i f i ed quest i on i n t he negat i ve, r ever se t he deci si on of t heFi r st Di st r i ct Cour t of Appeal bel ow, and remand the armedrobbery and armed burgl ary count s f or r esent enci ng under t hesent enci ng gui del i nes. Pet i t i oner al so r equest s t hat t hi sCour t r emand the ent i r e case f or a new t r i al due to t he st at e' sadm t t edl y out r ageous and r eprehensi bl e conduct .

Respect f ul l y subm t t ed,NANCY A. DANI ELSPUBLI C DEFENDERSECOND J UDI CI AL CI RCUI T

P. DOUGLAS~RI NKMEYERFl a. Bar No. 197890Assi st ant Publ i c Def enderLeon County Cour t house301 S . Monroe - 4t h Fl oor Nor t hTal l ahassee, Fl or i da 32301( 904) 488- 2458ATTORNEY FOR PETI TI ONER

- 21-


26/34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been

furnished by hand delivery to Laura Rush, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, and a copy has beenmailed to petitioner, #285340, P.O. Box 500, Olustee, Florida32072, this I y d a y of September, 1991.

&A&

P. DOUGLAS BRINKMEYER

-22-


27/34


28/34

cI N THE DI STRI CT COURT OF APPEAL

J OHN WEST a/k/a THOMAS D. *MI TCHELL , *Appel l ant , *V.STATE OF FLORI DA, **Appel l ee. *

Opi ni on f i l ed August , 7, 1991.

FI RST DI STRI CT, STATE OF FLORI DANOT FI NAL UNTI L TI ME EXPI RESTO FI LE REHEARI NG MOTI ON ANDDI SPOSI TI ON THEREOF I F FI LED.

An Appeal f r om t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or Duval Count y.. R. Hudson Ol l i f f , J udge.

Nancy A. Dani el s, Publ i c Def ender : Gai l Ander son, Assi st antPubl i c Def ender , Tal l ahassee, f or appel l ant .Rober t A. But t er wor t h, At t or ney Gener al : Laur a Rush, Assi st antAt t or ney Gener al , Tal l ahassee, f or appel l ee.

W GGI NTON, J .Fol l owi ng a j ur y t r i al , appel l ant was convi ct ed of ar med

bur gl ar y, f al se i mpr i sonment , ar med r obber y, and one count ofsexual bat t er y wi t h a deadl y weapon. Appel l ant r ai ses t wo poi nt son appeal , t hose bei ng: ( I ) Whet her t he st at e' s and t r i alcour t ' s ac t i on i n di sm ss i ng t he f i r s t j ur y pool depr i ved


29/34

cappel l ant of hi s r i ght s t o due pr ocess, t o a f ai r l y and r andom ysel ect ed j ur y, t o be pr esent at al l c r i t i cal s t ages of t hepr oceedi ngs, and t o t he assi st ance of counsel : and ( 11) Whet hert he t r i al cour t er r ed i n i mposi ng habi t ual of f ender sent ences onappel l ant ' s convi c t i ons whi ch ar e ei t her f i r s t - degr ee f el oni espuni shabl e by l i f e or l i f e f el oni es . We af f i r m i n par t andr ever se i n par t .

Regar di ng Poi nt I , t he r ecor d shows t hat f ol l owi ng t hef i l i ng of a def ense mot i on f or new t r i al , an assi st ant st at eat t or ney not connect ed wi t h appel l ant ' s case f i l ed a "Di sc l osur eof I nf or mat i on t o t he Cour t " r eveal i ng t hat as she was l eavi ngt he cour t on Febr uar y 5, 1990, she not ed t hat t he j ur y veni r eassembl ed f or voi r di r e i n appel l ant ' s t r i al

. . . di d not appear t o be a hi ghl y educ t ed j ur y.A wel l - educat ed j ur y was desi r abl e based on t hecompl i cat ed and t echni cal nat ur e of [ appel l ant ' s]pendi ng case.Accor di ng t o the di sc l osur e, t he assi st ant st at e at t or ney

t hen appr oached t he bench and r epr esent ed t o t he cour t t hat an" emer gency" exi st ed t hat r equi r ed t he cour t ' s at t ent i on, whi l eal so obser vi ng t hat t he panel di d not appear t o be hi ghl ydesi r abl e. She adm t t ed t hat i t was an over st at ement f or her t ote rm as an " emer gency" t he f act t hat an essent i al wi t ness hadnot yet cont act ed t he St at e At t or ney' s Of f i ce. She al soadm t t ed t hat t he over st at ement was made " wi t h t he i nt ent t hatt he panel may not be used. " Even t hough she was not t hepr osecut or assi gned t o handl e appel l ant ' s case, t he tr i al cour t

-2-


30/34

di sm ssed t he wai t i ng panel based on her r epr esent at i on t hatt her e was an emer gency. A l unch hour r ecess was t aken and t hecour t t her eaf t er cal l ed anot her panel f r om t he j ur y pool t o t hecour t r oom f or sel ect i on. The r ecor d shows t hat a j ur y was t hensel ect ed by appel l ant ' s def ense at t or ney and t he pr osecut orassi gned to t he case, nei t her of whom used al l of t hei rper empt or y chal l enges.

I n r esponse t o t hi s el event h- hour di scl osur e by t he- assi st ant st at e at t or ney, def ense counsel f i l ed an amended

mot i on f or new t r i al ar gui ng t hat t he st at e at t or ney' s act i onshad deni ed hi m a f ai r t r i al and t hat t he c our t ' s di sm ssal oft he f i r st j ur y pool was t ant amount t o gr ant i ng t he st at e anunl i m t ed number of per empt or y chal l enges. I n denyi ng t hemot i on, t he t r i al cour t obser ved t hat al l t he j ur or s i n t he pool -wer e qual i f i ed and t hat any panel pul l ed out of t hat gr oup woul dhave been a l egal panel . Accor di ngl y, t he cour t obser ved t hatappel l ant was not depr i ved of any due pr ocess " by usi ng Panel Aor Panel B . "

I ni t i al l y, we obser ve t hat much of appel l ant ' s ar gument onappeal was not present ed t o the t r i al cour t and t her ef or e i s notpr eser ved f or r evi ew. Hi l l v. State, 549 So. 2d 179 ( Fl a. 1989) .What was ar gued was t hat appel l ant was deni ed due pr ocess andt hat t he st at e was gr ant ed an unl i m t ed number of per empt or ychal l enges. As t o t hat ar gument , we agr ee wi t h t he st at e t hat ,despi t e t he st at e at t or ney' s r epr ehens i bl ebei ng i nvest i gat ed) , t her e was no due pr ocessappel l ant r ecei ved a f ai r t r i al .

conduct ( whi ch i svi ol at i on and t hat


31/34

cI t i s axi omat i c that t o j us t i f y a new t r i al , a def endant

must est abl i sh t hat t he al l eged er r or ser i ousl y af f ect ed t hef ai r ness of hi s t r i al and t hat t he t r i al cour t abused i t sdi scr et i on i n denyi ng t he mot i on. At ki ns v. State, 210 So.2d 9( Fl a. 1s t DCA 1968) . I t i s f ur t her wi t hout di sput e t hat adef endant ' s r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y under t he Si xt h andFour t eent h Amendment s of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on does notent i t l e t hat def endant t o be t r i ed by any par t i cul ar j ur or s orby a j ur y of a par t i cul ar composi t i on. Tavl or v. Loui si ana, 419U. S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L. Ed. 2d 690 ( 1975) .

I n t he i nst ant case, as not ed by t he st at e, appel l ant doesnot assai l t he j ur or s ummoni ng pr ocess or t he mast er l i st f r omwhi ch pr ospect i ve j ur or s i n t he communi t y wer e dr awn. He doesnot al l ege t hat any j ur or sel ect ed f r om t he second veni r e wasunqual i f i ed t o ser ve. I ndeed, f ol l owi ng sel ect i on of t he j ur y ,def ense counsel not ed f or t he r ecor d t hat he was sat i sf i ed wi t ht he j ur y. W t h t hat i n m nd, we. st r ess that we ar e notm ni m z i ng the pot ent i al f or pr ej udi ce t hat t he ass i s t ant s t at eat t or ney' s out r ageous conduct may have caused under ot herc i r cumst ances . However , appel l ant ' s c l ai m her ei n r est s sol el yon t he exchange of one i ndi st i ngui shabl e veni r e f r om anot her .The t r i al cour t i ndul ged i n cr eat i ve anal ogy on t hi s poi nt whi chwe quot e bel ow but do not necessar i l y endor se as appl yi ng i n al ls i t uat i ons . I n hol di ng t hat t hi s exchange had no bear i ng upont he r andomness of t he j ur y sel ect i on pr ocess t he cour t obser ved:

- 4-


32/34

When t he f i r st panel was excused t her e i sn' t anyquest i on i t was excused because of t he f al sest at ement by t he pr osecut or . But when t hey wer eexcused t hey went back i n t he pool , l i ke you woul dr el ease a bucket f ul of m nnows back i nt o t he pond.When t hey cal l ed f or t he panel t he second t i me, myanal ogy woul d be you pi ck up t he bucket and scoopf r om t he same pond a second t i me. You m ght getal l t he same ones you dumped out . You m ght wi nt he l ot t ery next week, t oo. The odds ar e good youwon' t do any of t hose. The odds ar e equal l yagai nst your scoopi ng agai n and get t i ng none oft he same. Most l i kel y you woul d get some of t hesame ones , s ome di f f er ent ones. But be t hat as i tmay, i t ' s t he pond t hat i s i n quest i on. I f t hepond i s f ul l of peopl e who has been f ound t o bequal i f i ed t o be j ur or s, t hen any panel pul l ed outof t hat gr oup i s a l egal panel . And t he def endanti s not depr i ved of any due pr ocess by usi ng PanelA or Panel B.

Si m l ar l y m s gui ded i s appel l ant ' s ar gument t hat t hedi sm ssal of t he veni r e was t ant amount t o t he exer ci se ofunl i m t ed per empt or y chal l enges by t he st at e. As t he st at ear gues, per empt or y st r i kes ar e chal l enges t o i ndi vi dualpr ospect i ve j ur or s f ol l owi ng a voi r di r e exam nat i on. Her e, t het r i al cour t di d not by i t s di sm ssal of t he veni r e i n or der t oat t end t o a per cei ved emergency gr ant any par t i cul ar chal l enge.I n t hat t he cour t di sm ssed t he veni r e f or a r eason whi ch i tbel i eved t o be l egi t i mat e, case l aw ci t ed by appel l ant hol di ngas r ever si bl e er r or per se a cour t ' s gr ant of per empt or ychal l enges i n excess of t hose per m t t ed by l aw i s i r r el evant t ot hi s case. Compar e Sander s v. St at e, 328 So. 2d 268 ( Fl a. 1stDCA 1976) ; Moor e v. St at e, 335 So. 2d 877 ( Fl a. 4t h DCA 1976) .

I mpl i c i t i n appel l ant ' s ar gument i s r ank specul at i on t hatt he f i r st j ur y pool woul d have pr ovi ded hi m a mor e f avor abl e

- 5 -


33/34


34/34

kruidbos - cheryl peek

Documents