Baker v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-5580.,2D03-5580. |
| Citation | 877 So.2d 856 |
| Parties | Timothy Fredrick BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
In his petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c), Timothy Fredrick Baker alleges his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that certain jury instructions given in his trial amounted to fundamental error. We agree that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he neglected to raise this issue and therefore grant the petition and allow Baker a belated appeal on this issue only.
Baker was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon emanating from a love triangle that provoked a melee in a woman's apartment. According to the victim's trial testimony, the victim and Baker's "off and on" girlfriend were sitting clothed on the bed in the girlfriend's apartment when Baker entered the bedroom and started punching the girlfriend. The victim came to her defense, at which time Baker retrieved a knife from the kitchen and stabbed the victim. The girlfriend's testimony was consistent with the victim's account.
Baker's testimony provided a different version of the events. He testified that he walked in on his "off and on" girlfriend and the victim while they were engaged in sexual acts. The victim then attacked him, and a fight ensued. Baker fell, and the victim went into the kitchen and returned with a knife. Baker testified that he and the victim struggled over the knife until he was able to get it out of the victim's hand and throw it in the kitchen.
The trial court instructed1 the jury on the justifiable use of deadly force as follows: Baker's trial counsel did not object to this instruction. Therefore, to have been raised on appeal, the instruction would have had to amount to fundamental error. Baker alleges in his petition that appellate counsel's failure to argue that the instruction was fundamental error constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
At the time appellate counsel filed his brief2 in this case, two cases from the Fourth District were instructive on this issue: Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Fair v. Crosby, 858 So.2d 1103, 1104-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Giles, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery. Over defense counsel's objection, the jury was instructed that the "use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find that the defendant was attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery." Giles, 831 So.2d at 1265. In holding that the instruction constituted reversible error, the court stated:
The instruction given improperly told the jury that the very act Giles sought to justify itself precluded a finding of justification. Essentially, the jury was instructed that [section] 776.041(1) would apply to preclude a self defense claim, when it is claimed that the acts with which the defendant is charged are themselves committed in appropriate self-defense.
Id. at 1266. This reasoning certainly applied in Baker's case. Giles did not answer, however, whether giving such an instruction was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. State
...instruction. See Ortiz v. State, 905 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); York v. State, 891 So.2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Baker v. State, 877 So.2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Hickson v. State, 873 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Estevez v. Crosby, 858 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Fair v. Crosby, 8......
-
Pinkney v. Sec'y, DOC
...(Fla. 1988). "The fundamental nature of [an] error can be gleaned only from a review of the full record on appeal." Baker v. State, 877 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quotation marks omitted). The facts of the cases involving the issue illustrate that.The Smith case involved a "faulty i......
-
Sloss v. State
...where the defendant claimed self-defense against four charges of aggravated battery constituted reversible error); Baker v. State, 877 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (involving a defendant's aggravated battery conviction against one victim and uncharged battery against another victim). I......
-
Sloss v. State, Case No. 5D03-3120 (FL 9/30/2005)
...where the defendant claimed self-defense against four charges of aggravated battery constituted reversible error); Baker v. State, 877 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (involving a defendant's aggravated battery conviction against one victim and uncharged battery against another victim). ......