Braddy v. State
Decision Date | 10 April 2013 |
Docket Number | No. SC07–2174.,SC07–2174. |
Citation | 111 So.3d 810 |
Parties | Harrel Franklin BRADDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carlos Jesus Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew McBride Stanton, and Valerie Jonas, Assistant Public Defenders, Miami, FL, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida and Sandra Sue Jaggard, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Appellee.
Harrel Franklin Braddy appeals his first-degree murder conviction and sentence of death for the killing of Quatisha Maycock, as well as his convictions and sentences for related offenses.We have jurisdiction.Seeart.V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Braddy's convictions and sentences.
The evidence presented at Braddy's trial revealed the following facts.Shandelle Maycock, mother to then five-year-old Quatisha, testified that she first met Braddy and his wife Cyteria through a mutual friend from church.Shortly after their initial meeting, Braddy began showing up at Shandelle's home alone, unannounced, and uninvited, staying for short periods of time with no apparent purpose.Shandelle testified that she initially thought of Braddy as a “nice person” and would occasionally ask him for small favors.Braddy once inappropriately placed his hand between Shandelle's legs, but when Shandelle became angry and threatened Braddy with a knife, Braddy left her apartment and later apologized for his actions.Shandelle testified that Braddy never again made a sexual advance toward her.
On Friday, November 6, 1998, Braddy picked Shandelle up from work and drove her home.After Braddy left Shandelle's apartment at approximately 5:30 p.m., Shandelle began to call around looking for a ride to pick up Quatisha, who was being watched by a family member.Shandelle had not found a ride by approximately 10 p.m., at which time Braddy returned to her apartment in a gold Lincoln Town Car that he had rented earlier in the day.Braddy told Shandelle that they needed to talk but agreed to first drive Shandelle to pick up Quatisha.After picking up Quatisha and returning to Shandelle's apartment, Braddy again stated that he needed to talk to Shandelle.Shandelle agreed, but before Braddy could talk to Shandelle, the phone rang.Shandelle answered the phone, had a brief conversation, and, after hanging up, told Braddy that he needed to leave because she was expecting company.Shandelle testified that this statement had been a lie—she had not been expecting company but simply wanted Braddy to leave because it was late and she was tired.Upon being told to leave, Braddy immediately attacked Shandelle, threatening to kill her and choking her until she lost consciousness.Shandelle testified that when she regained consciousness, she was still in her apartment but Braddy again choked her until she passed out.
Shandelle's landlord, who occupied the house to which Shandelle's apartment was attached, testified that he heard shouting coming from Shandelle's apartment shortly before midnight.When he looked outside a short time later, the landlord saw Braddy standing at the driver-side door of the Town Car and Quatisha standing by the passenger-side door.He did not see Shandelle.
Shandelle testified that when she awoke for the second time, she was in the back seat of a large car parked in her driveway.Quatisha was in the front passenger seat, and Braddy was in the driver's seat.As Braddy began to drive, Shandelle told Quatisha that they were going to jump out of the car.Braddy warned Shandelle not to jump, but Shandelle nevertheless pulled Quatisha into the backseat and opened the door.When Braddy saw that they were about to jump, he accelerated and turned a corner, causing Shandelle and Quatisha to fall out of the car.
Braddy stopped the car, helped Quatisha back into the car, and put Shandelle in the trunk.Shandelle testified that she remained in the trunk for thirty to forty-five minutes while Braddy continued to drive, after which time the car stopped and Braddy opened the trunk.Braddy pulled Shandelle out of the trunk, threw her to the ground, and again choked her until she lost consciousness, all the while threatening to kill her and accusing her of using him.When Shandelle woke up, it was daylight and she was lying in a remote area surrounded by foliage.Shandelle walked to the road and flagged down passing motorists, who called the police.
Between 1:30 and 2:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 7, Braddy returned home in the Town Car.Cyteria testified that she was awakened when Braddy came home and, when she went to the door to meet him, saw Braddy wiping down the interior of the Town Car with a cloth.Cyteria also testified that the washing machine was running and that when she looked inside the machine, she saw the clothes Braddy had been wearing earlier that night.
On November 7, police spoke to Shandelle at Glades Hospital, where she had been taken for treatment after being found on the side of the road that morning.Shandelle gave police her statement, along with the names and descriptions of Braddy and Quatisha.Detectives Giancarlo Milito and Juan Murias went to Braddy's home to determine Quatisha's whereabouts.Shortly after the detectives arrived at Braddy's house, they observed him exit the house and drive away in the Town Car.The detectives followed Braddy to a gas station and approached him as he was pumping gas.When the detectives first asked Braddy about Quatisha, Braddy appeared calm and denied any knowledge of the situation.However, when the detectives informed Braddy that Shandelle was alive and had implicated him in Quatisha's disappearance, Braddy turned pale, began to sweat, shake, and cry, and claimed to feel faint.Detective Milito testified that at this point, although Braddy was not under arrest, he placed Braddy in handcuffs for everyone's safety because of “the history that I had of him.”
The detectives took Braddy to the Miami–Dade County Police Department and sent the Town Car to be processed.Detectives Otis Chambers and Fernando Suco began to question Braddy at approximately 9 p.m. on Saturday, November 7.When the detectives asked Braddy if he would consent to giving DNA samples, Braddy stated that he knew his rights and wished to be read his rights.Detective Suco, the lead investigator in the case, explained Braddy's rights to him pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 461, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966), through the use of a standard Miranda form, which Braddy signed and initialed appropriately.After Braddy indicated that he understood and waived his rights, Detective Suco obtained Braddy's consent to take specimens for DNA samples and to search Braddy's home and the Town Car.However, because Braddy hesitated before signing the last consent form, Suco also obtained search warrants for Braddy's house and the Town Car.
Pursuant to both Braddy's consent to search and the search warrant, police searched the Town Car on Sunday, November 8.After being only partially processed, however, the Town Car was mistakenly released back to the rental agency, where it remained for approximately a day.Police were able to recover the Town Car before it had been cleaned by the rental agency, and pursuant to a second search warrant signed on November 10, investigators removed the trunk liner for DNA testing.Shandelle's blood was found on the liner.
Meanwhile, Braddy's interview continued early into the morning of November 8.Although Braddy spoke to the detectives—becoming visibly agitated when talking about Shandelle—he divulged no information about Quatisha's whereabouts.Feeling that they were not making any progress, the detectives took a break from the interview just before midnight on November 7.During the break, Detective Suco prepared Braddy's arrest form and conferred with other detectives who were gathering information on the case.Having determined that Braddy was lying to them, based on information received from other detectives, the detectives reinitiated the interview at approximately 1:15 a.m. on November 8 and confronted Braddy about lying.Braddy responded by saying, The detectives continued to question Braddy, but although there was some interaction, Braddy refused to answer questions about Quatisha and mostly “just sat there or ... would put his head down.”
At approximately 3 a.m. on November 8, Braddy asked to talk to Detective Chambers alone.The detectives complied, but after fifteen to twenty minutes of useless conversation, Detective Chambers brought Detective Suco back into the room.Shortly thereafter, both detectives escorted Braddy to the bathroom, which he had asked to use.While walking through the homicide office to and from the bathroom, Braddy appeared to be “looking around” and “seeing where he was at.”After returning from the bathroom, the detectives again left Braddy in the interview room while the detectives compared information with other investigators.The detectives resumed the interview at approximately 3:55 a.m. and again confronted Braddy with evidence that contradicted what Braddy had been telling them.For the next two hours, Braddy responded to questions but refused to talk about Quatisha's whereabouts.At around 6:15 a.m. on November 8, in an attempt to evoke an emotional response and elicit information, the detectives lied and told Braddy that his mother had suffered a heart attack.Although Braddy became visibly upset at this information, he did not divulge any information about Quatisha.
Finally, at around 8 a.m. on November 8, Braddy told the detectives that he had left Quatisha in the same area where he had left Shandelle.Braddy then stated that he was tired of talking to the detectives and said that if they did not believe his story, they could take...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
McCloud v. State
...or about the underlying right to cut off all questioning." Id. (citing Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155, 163 (Fla.2007) ).Braddy v. State, 111 So.3d 810, 830 (Fla.2012). Still, "context is generally as important, if not more important, than the exact words a suspect uses in a statement that i......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...the prosecutor's comments so tainted the jury's verdict so as to warrant a new penalty phase proceeding.” Id.; see also Braddy v. State, 111 So.3d 810, 850 (Fla.2012) (concluding that the unobjected-to imaginary script, “Where's mommy? Where's mommy?” illustrated confusion of child victim b......
-
Leonard v. Inch
...U.S. at 244, n.7 (quoting Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Rundle, 428 Pa. 102, 105-106, 237 A.2d 196, 197-198 (1968); and Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810, 859 (Fla. 2012) (a guilty plea includes a confession to the acts which constitute the crime) (citing McCrae v. State, 395 So.2d 1145, 1154 ......
-
Kalisz v. State
...victim impact evidence.A trial court's decision to admit victim impact testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Braddy v. State, 111 So.3d 810, 857 (Fla.2012); Deparvine v. State, 995 So.2d 351, 378 (Fla.2008). During the penalty phase, Nicole and Lauren, the daughters of victim De......
-
Chapter 19-4 Appeals Used in Foreclosure Proceedings
...to Vacate Final Judgment. Smith v. Weede, 433 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).[32] Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(a).[33] See Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012) (Contemporaneous objection rule requires that trial court knows that an objection was made, clearly understands the nature of the o......
-
Chapter 18-4 Types of Appeals Used in Foreclosure
...to Vacate Final Judgment. Smith v. Weede, 433 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).[27] Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(a).[28] See Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012) (Contemporaneous objection rule requires that trial court knows that an objection was made, clearly understands the nature of the o......