Graham v. State
Decision Date | 07 November 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 1D10–5805.,1D10–5805. |
Citation | 100 So.3d 755 |
Parties | April C. GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Ufferman of the Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Charged with burglary of a dwelling while armed and with attempted first-degree murder, April C. Graham was convicted of the lesser-included offenses of trespass and aggravated battery. She appeals her conviction for aggravated battery, contending that the trial court committed fundamental error in three different ways in instructing the jury. Finding none of the asserted errors was fundamental (or preserved for appeal), we affirm on that basis.
The state presented evidence at trial that Ms. Graham entered her boyfriend's apartment through a bedroom window, and stabbed Natalie Banks with a knife causing great bodily harm. After defense counsel announced the defense was not requesting jury instructions on any lesser-included offenses, the prosecutor requested that the jury be instructed, as to attempted first-degree murder, on the lesser-included offenses of attempted second-degree murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Defense counsel conceded the state was entitled to instructions on lesser-included offenses given “the current standing of the law,” see Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 595, 599 (Fla.2007), but objected to any instructions on lesser-included offenses “just in case that changes.” Later, defense counsel stated he had reviewed the verdict form 1 and, still later, a copy of the jury instructions the trial court proposed to give, and had no other objection to either. Nor was any objection interposed when the instructions were read to the jury.
As written and as the trial court read them to the jury, the jury instructions defined aggravated battery, not as requiring the use of a deadly weapon, see§ 784.045(1)(a) 2., Fla. Stat. (2008), but as entailing the infliction of great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement. See§ 784.045(1)(a) 1., Fla. Stat. (2008). On appeal for the first time, Ms. Graham contends that the trial court erred by using a definition of aggravated battery not subsumed in the attempted first-degree murder charge laid against her: The information charged that Ms. Graham “did unlawfully attempt to kill a human being, Natalie Banks, by stabbing her,” but did not allege great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement. See State v. Von Deck, 607 So.2d 1388, 1389 (Fla.1992) ( ); Andrews v. State, 679 So.2d 859, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ( ).
Under controlling authority, however, because aggravated battery is lesser in degree and penalty than attempted first-degree murder, the trial court's error is not fundamental. See Nesbitt v. State, 889 So.2d 801, 803 (Fla.2004) ( ) the improperly charged offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the main offense or 2) defense counsel requested the improper charge or relied on that charge as evidenced by argument to the jury or other affirmative action.’ ”) (quoting Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 961 (Fla.1981)). Trial counsel's failure to object to the definition of aggravated battery used in the jury instructions precludes relief on appeal on Andrews grounds.
Trial counsel also stated no objection to the sequence in which the lesser-included offenses were listed. For the charge of attempted first-degree murder, the jury instructions and verdict form presented these lesser-included offenses in the following order: attempted second-degreemurder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and aggravated battery. The jury was twice informed:
You may find the defendant guilty as charged in the information or guilty of such lesser included crime as the evidence may justify or not guilty. If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.12. On appeal for the first time, Ms. Graham asserts the trial court erred by listing aggravated battery after, instead of before, attempted voluntary manslaughter on the verdict form and when instructing the jury. She maintains that “it is reasonable to assume that the jurors believed that aggravated battery carried a lesser punishment than attempted manslaughter” based on the order in which the offenses appear on the verdict form and the fact that jurors are instructed that a verdict of guilty should be for the highest offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Absent enhancement, aggravated battery is a second-degree felony, punishable by a maximum sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment. See§§ 784.045(2), 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008). Again absent enhancement, manslaughter is also a second-degree felony, punishable by the same fifteen-year maximum. See§ 782.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). Unlike the completed offense,2 however, unenhanced attempted voluntary manslaughter is a third-degree felony, punishable by a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. See§§ 782.07(1), 777.04(4)(d), 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2008). The jury convicted Ms. Graham of aggravated battery, the lesser-included offense listed last on the verdict form, but the lesser-included offense listed last on the verdict form was not the least serious lesser-included offense listed. See Thomas v. State, 91 So.3d 880, 881–82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) () .
Assuming arguendo Ms. Graham is correct in her assertion that the order in which the lesser-included offenses were listed was potentially misleading, we do not agree that the inversion of aggravated battery and attempted voluntary manslaughter constituted fundamental error. The jury was accurately instructed both on the elements of aggravated battery by causing great bodily harm and of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and the evidence supported the conviction for aggravated battery. Taylor v. State, 62 So.3d 1101, 1119 (Fla.2011) (quoting State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644–45 (Fla.1991)). On this record it cannot be said that Ms. Graham could not have been convicted of aggravated battery if all the lesser-included offenses had been listed in descending order of severity. Again, trial counsel raised no objection to the sequence in which the lesser-included offenses...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peoples v. Sec'y, Dep't. of Corr.
... ... U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and challenges the validity of ... his state conviction for manslaughter with a weapon, for ... which Mr. Peoples serves thirty years' imprisonment ... After careful consideration ... aggravated battery under Florida Statute § 785.045, ... great bodily harm and deadly weapon. See also Graham v ... State , 100 So.3d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding no ... error in the trial court listing lesser-included offenses on ... ...
-
Stewart v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., CASE NO. 6:11-cv-2053-Orl-36KRS
...did not completely negate Petitioner's theory of defense and thus did not deprive Petitioner of a fair trial. See Graham v. State, 100 So. 3d 755, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("[w]here the challenged jury instruction involves an affirmative defense, as opposed to an element of the crime, fundam......
-
Washington v. State
...to the jury or other affirmative action. Nesbitt , 889 So. 2d at 803 (quoting Ray , 403 So. 2d at 961 )); see also Graham v. State , 100 So. 3d 755, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("Under controlling authority, however, because aggravated battery is lesser in degree and penalty than attempted firs......
-
Richards v. State
...regarding the proper order in which to place attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery on a verdict form. See, e.g., Graham v. State, 100 So.3d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Thomas v. State, 91 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The record in this case reflects that the parties prepared the verd......