Davis v. State

• Decision Date: 15 April 2003
• Docket Number: No. 1D01-2381.,1D01-2381.
• Citation: 842 So.2d 989
• Parties: Charles Joseph DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

842 So.2d 989

Charles Joseph DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D01-2381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2003.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Anne H. Dunlap, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Barbara J. Yates, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

KAHN, J.

Appellant, Charles Joseph Davis, challenges his conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of strong arm robbery. In particular, Davis argues that the trial court erred by ruling that an incriminating statement he made was an admission not subject to exclusion under section 90.410, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(a). We agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand this case for a new trial.

Davis, charged with robbery and theft, made the statement at issue while he was in court for a pretrial "rocket docket" arraignment hearing. Defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the judge discussed with Davis the question of a negotiated plea:

MRS. BELLER [defense counsel]: Mr. Davis. Your Honor, Mr. Davis was offered a robbery, second degree, and also a ...

MR. GRAMMER [prosecutor]: Grand theft.

MRS. BELLER: Third degree for retail theft. He was offered two years community control, three years probation. He's declined that plea. We would transfer him to the trial division, and that would be Ann Riehle.

THE COURT: Let me make sure you understand what's happening, Mr. Davis. The, at this point in time the State and you can negotiate back and forth. It's still up to the Court to agree to go along with whatever you negotiate, but once it gets past the point of that, then the issue becomes the jury determining your guilt or innocence of the charge, and if they come back and say you're guilty, then I tell you what your sentence is because I do not negotiate. All right?

MRS. BELLER: Okay, do you understand that if you were found guilty at trial of the robbery, you could receive 15 years in prison?

THE DEFENDANT: Oh, I already told you I was guilty of that, but the grand theft, no, no, no.

(emphasis added). No agreement came about and Davis proceeded to trial.

The State subsequently filed a pretrial motion requesting the court to find Davis's statement admissible, as an admission under section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes. During the hearing on the motion, Grammer testified that he heard the conversation at issue and, at the time, he had not extended a plea offer and the statement was not made in the course of any plea negotiation. Grammer described the context of the statement:

[I]t was a conversation between Ms. Beller and the defendant which, Ms. Beller was intentionally putting it on the record. And it's fairly typical to put that information on the record to, in case the person is convicted later they can't say their lawyer didn't ever tell them what was going on.

Defense counsel argued that the statement should be excluded because "clearly there was a plea offer discussed in some form or fashion" and "this was in the context of a... plea offer...." The court observed that the question asked by counsel, which resulted in the alleged admission, "normally would call for a yes or no answer" and Davis's statement "really is not responsive to the question...." The court granted the State's motion.

The State introduced the statement at trial through Grammer's testimony. Defense counsel objected, and the court adhered to its earlier ruling:

THE COURT: Again, the question that was asked, and I have to go back to the context of the question. Do you understand if you're found guilty at trial you will receive 15 years in prison calls for a yes or no answer. The defendant's response was not responsive to the question, it is an admission type of thing. It is, in a sense, nonresponsive. It is his statement. It is not really in the context of a plea negotiation. It was just spontaneous, almost a spontaneous type of statement being made. So I still feel it is an admission. I'll note the defendant's objection and overrule that objection, allow it to come into evidence.

On appeal, Davis argues that his statement was made in connection with plea negotiations and, therefore, the trial court erred in allowing the statement into evidence as an admission. Davis asserts that his statement indicates he did not want to go to trial on the robbery charge, he did not want to face 15 years in prison, and he had already told defense counsel he was guilty of the robbery (so he would plea to it) but not grand theft. Davis asserts that "[i]n light of [his] `actual, subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion' and the fact that his `expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances,' the trial court reversibly erred in allowing [his] statements into evidence." See Richardson v. State, 706 So.2d 1349, 1353 (Fla.1998)

; United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir.1978).

In Richardson, the Florida Supreme Court set forth the following analysis for determining whether statements should be excluded as made in connection with a plea offer:

At issue is Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h), which states that:

Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of an offer or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, later withdrawn, or of statements made in connection therewith, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person

...