Daugherty v. State

• Decision Date: 19 January 2017
• Docket Number: No. SC14–860,SC14–860
• Citation: 211 So.3d 29
• Parties: Thomas DAUGHERTY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

211 So.3d 29

Thomas DAUGHERTY, Petitioner,

v.STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC14–860

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 19, 2017]

Donna Duncan and Steven Lauren Seliger of Sanders and Duncan, P.A., Apalachicola, Florida, for Petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; Consiglia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Jeanine Marie Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida; and Kristen Lynn Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Respondent

LABARGA, C.J.

Thomas Daugherty seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Daugherty v. State , 96 So.3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Daugherty cited as authority the district court decisions in Haygood v. State , 54 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), rev. granted , 61 So.3d 410 (Fla. 2011) (table), and Williams v. State , 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), rev. granted , 64 So.3d 1262 (Fla. 2011) (table), both of which were reversed by this Court.¹ We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Upon review, we quash the decision of the district court and hold that where a defendant is convicted of second-degree murder after the jury is erroneously instructed on the lesser included offense of manslaughter by act, the one step removed analysis to determine fundamental error is not based on the order of the offenses on the verdict form. Rather, because manslaughter as a matter of degree is a next lesser offense of second-degree murder, giving an erroneous instruction on manslaughter by act constitutes fundamental error even if manslaughter is not listed immediately below second-degree murder on the verdict form. In this case, the error caused by a faulty instruction on manslaughter by act was not cured by the jury's consideration of other offenses that were also one step removed. Thus, we remand this case with instructions that Daugherty be granted a new trial for the homicide of Norris Gaynor.

Additionally, because the jury convicted Daugherty of attempted second-degree murder after being erroneously instructed on attempted voluntary manslaughter, we remand this case with instructions that Daugherty be granted a new trial for the attempted homicides of Jacques Pierre and Raymond Perez.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Daugherty was convicted of one count of second-degree murder and two counts of attempted second-degree murder. These convictions stemmed from a series of three separate events during the early morning hours of January 12, 2006, when Daugherty and two codefendants beat three homeless men in Fort Lauderdale. Victim Norris Gaynor died from his injuries hours after the attack. Victims Jacques Pierre and Raymond Perez survived their injuries. Daugherty was seventeen years old at the time of the crimes.

At trial, multiple witnesses, including codefendant William "Billy" Ammons, testified that Daugherty was present during the attacks on each victim. Ammons testified that after smoking marijuana and drinking at his home during the early morning hours of January 12, 2006, he, Daugherty, Brian Hooks, and Joey Griffith decided to ride to the beach. Ammons was the driver. While in the vicinity of Florida Atlantic University, either Daugherty or Hooks suggested that they "mess with" a man they saw sitting on a bench. All agreed, and Ammons parked his vehicle.

Daugherty and Hooks took baseball bats with them and approached the man (Jacques Pierre). Daugherty and Hooks swung their bats at Pierre. Ammons testified that Daugherty's swing missed Pierre, while Hooks hit Pierre in the shoulder. Immediately afterwards, Ammons, Daugherty and the others ran back to Ammons' vehicle. The attack on Pierre was captured on surveillance video.

The group returned to Ammons' home and began smoking more marijuana and drinking. Each agreed to go out again and find another victim. While en route to another location, they rode past the location where they attacked Pierre and saw yellow crime tape. Ammons parked near the local performing arts center, and Hooks and Daugherty went in search of another person to attack. The group approached a man (Norris Gaynor) who was laying on a bench. Daugherty hit Gaynor in the head with a baseball bat while Ammons, who was armed with a paintball gun, fired it multiple times. Daugherty and Hooks ran away, but they reapproached Gaynor after seeing him try to get up from the bench. Hooks hit Gaynor with a rake and Daugherty again hit Gaynor with the bat.

Ammons and Griffith left the area without Daugherty and Hooks, but later met up with them. They all returned to Ammons' home, and Griffith eventually departed from the others. Ammons, Daugherty, and Hooks continued to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol, after which they left Ammons' home in search of a third person to attack. Hooks, who was driving this time, parked his vehicle and retrieved a golf club and a play sword from inside the vehicle. Hooks gave Ammons the sword. Daugherty was armed with a baseball bat. The three started walking toward one man with the intent to attack him. However, they were distracted by another man, Raymond Perez, who was laying on the ground under a blanket. The three ran toward Perez. Ammons began hitting him with the sword, and Daugherty hit him with the bat. Perez started yelling, and the three ran away and returned to Ammons' home.

Pierre and Perez suffered serious injuries but survived. Gaynor died from blunt force trauma several hours after the attack, despite being treated in an emergency room. Gaynor suffered five cracked ribs, as well as skull and facial fractures, internal bleeding, swelling, and cuts and bruises. His eyes and lips were swollen, his forehead was cut and bruised, and his nose was broken

. The part of his brain beneath the fractured skull area was crushed and cut in the front. Gaynor's face was also extensively fractured above his eyes.

Daugherty and Hooks were both charged with one count of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. The two defendants were tried together. Ammons pled guilty to third-degree murder and testified at the joint trial. In addition to an instruction on the charged offense of first-degree murder, Daugherty's jury also received instructions on the lesser included offenses of second-degree murder, third-degree felony murder, manslaughter, and aggravated battery, respectively.² The manslaughter instruction contained not only the required instruction on manslaughter by act, but also a permissive instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence. The instruction on manslaughter by act was consistent with the instruction later deemed fundamentally erroneous in this Court's decision in State v. Montgomery , 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010).

On appeal, Daugherty challenged his convictions. With respect to his conviction for second-degree murder, Daugherty argued that the faulty instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter by act constituted fundamental error. The parties also disputed whether the jury's consideration of manslaughter by culpable negligence remedied the fundamental error caused by the manslaughter by act instruction.

The district court declined to conduct a fundamental error analysis. Instead, the court concluded that a harmless error analysis applied because the lesser included offense of third-degree felony murder was placed on the verdict form between second-degree murder and manslaughter. According to the district court, as a result of the layout of the verdict form, the offense of manslaughter was two steps removed from the second-degree murder offense of which Daugherty was convicted. The court explained:

Even without considering that the jury received the manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction, we find that there is an independent reason why giving the manslaughter instruction, as a lesser included offense of the murder charge, was not fundamental error in this case. As our supreme court has explained, "When the trial court fails to properly instruct on a crime two or more degrees removed from the crime for which the defendant is convicted, the error is not per se reversible, but instead is subject to a harmless error analysis." Pena v. State , 901 So.2d 781, 787 (Fla. 2005). Here, because the jury was also instructed on the lesser included offense of third-degree felony murder, manslaughter was actually two steps removed from second-degree murder under the facts of this case. See Echols v. State , 484 So.2d 568, 574 (Fla. 1985) (holding that manslaughter was a lesser included offense that was three steps removed from first degree murder where the jury, if inclined to exercise its "pardon" power, could have returned verdicts of second-degree or third-degree murder). If the jury had been inclined to exercise its pardon power, it could have returned a verdict of third-degree felony murder, which was the next lower crime on the verdict form; the evidence in this case would have supported a conviction for third-degree felony murder. We conclude that the error in the manslaughter by act instruction was harmless and did not constitute fundamental error.

Daugherty , 96 So.3d at 1078. Thus, the court concluded that Daugherty was not entitled to relief because the erroneously instructed crime of manslaughter did not immediately follow the offense of conviction, second-degree murder, on the verdict form, but was instead preceded by third-degree felony murder.

The district court affirmed Daugherty's convictions. However, in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (holding unconstitutional mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders), it reversed Daugherty's sentence of life imprisonment for second-degree murder. Additionally, the court certified "conflict with the contrary decisions of the other districts" regarding the attempted manslaughter instruction. Because it required the jury to find...