Green v. State

Decision Date28 April 2005
Docket NumberNo. SC02-2315.,SC02-2315.
CitationGreen v. State, 907 So.2d 489 (Fla. 2005)
PartiesAlphonso GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Robert F. Moeller, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Robert J. Landry, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Alphonso Green appeals his sentences of death for two counts of first-degree murder imposed after resentencing.We have jurisdiction.Seeart. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the circuit court's judgment sentencing Green to death.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alphonso Green was convicted of the first-degree murder of Robert Nichols and the first-degree murder of Dora Nichols.SeeGreen v. State,583 So.2d 647, 648(Fla.1991).The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty.Seeid. at 650.Following that recommendation, the trial court imposed death sentences for the first-degree murder convictions.Seeid.On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Green's convictions and death sentences.Seeid. at 648.There, this Court detailed the facts surrounding the murders of Robert and Dora Nichols:

Alphonso Green lived in a rented duplex apartment with his girlfriend, Cassandra Jones, in Hillsborough County.They rented this apartment from Robert and Dora Nichols.On October 1, 1986, the sheriff posted an eviction notice on Green's apartment.There was a subsequent agreement between Green and the Nicholses that the $250 in back rent would be due on October 10, 1986, or the couple would have to vacate.On the evening of October 10, 1986, Green and Ms. Jones went to the Nicholses' home and paid the $250.
Douglas Atkins lived in an apartment adjacent to the Nicholses' home.On the night of October 10, he heard a knock on his window, followed by a loud knocking on the Nicholses' door.Atkins observed a black man, wearing no shoes or shirt.Neither he nor his girlfriend could identify the individual.Atkins went to the nearby home of another neighbor and armed himself.Upon returning, he heard drawers opening and closing in the Nicholses' home.Atkins left again to get the neighbor and, accompanied by the neighbor, went to the Nicholses' home.This time, the home was quiet and the lights were off.They entered and saw Mrs. Nichols lying dead on the floor.
The investigating officer, Detective Noblitt, arrived at the Nicholses' home after midnight on October 11, 1986.His testimony reflects that he discovered Mrs. Nichols lying inside the house near the front foyer; that she had been stabbed fourteen times; that Mr. Nichols was lying in the bedroom with bed covers stuffed into his mouth; that he had twenty-eight stab wounds; that he[Detective Noblitt] observed blood smears throughout the house and outside on the entrance railing, doors, handles, and gate; and that he found a green work shirt lying on the bedroom floor, which Green later identified as his own.The detective testified that he had been advised that a knife was missing from Green's kitchen.He went to Green's and Jones' residence and obtained from Jones a signed consent form to search the premises.As a result of this search, the police discovered several knives, including a butcher knife with a broken handle.
The testimony established that Green traveled to St. Petersburg and then to Ft. Lauderdale where he surrendered to the police.On October 20, Detective Noblitt and Sergeant Price arrived at the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department with a warrant for Green's arrest.The officers read Green his Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966)] rights, and Green signed a consent form.The officers testified that Green described the events of October 10, 1986.According to Detective Noblitt, Green stated that, after paying the Nicholses the $250, Green had a series of encounters with acquaintances during which he smoked cocaine; that afterwards he and a man named Bobby decided to retrieve the $250 check from the Nicholses' home to buy additional cocaine; that Green and Bobby walked to the alley behind Green's apartment; that Green pushed in his back door and Ms. Jones, who was inside, yelled at him; that they next went to the Nicholses' residence; that Green and Bobby knocked on the Nicholses' door and Mr. Nichols allowed them inside; that Green asked for his check and Mrs. Nichols refused; that Bobby then pulled out a large butcher knife and started stabbing Mrs. Nichols; that Mr. Nichols ran to the bedroom; and that Green and Bobby then left the home.
Detective Noblitt testified that he challenged Green's account and explained to Green that his investigation indicated that only one person had committed the crimes.Noblitt stated that Green again said that Bobby did it.Finally, Green admitted that there was no Bobby, that he was by himself, and that he could not believe what he had done.In his final confession, Noblitt stated that Green admitted that he came home, put on a clean work shirt, and took the largest butcher knife from the house; that he went to the Nicholses' home and was admitted by Mr. Nichols; that Mrs. Nichols was adamant about keeping Green's check; that the next thing he knew was that Mrs. Nichols was on the floor, stabbed and bleeding; that he followed Mr. Nichols to the back bedroom; that the next thing he knew was that Mr. Nichols was on the floor stabbed, bleeding and moaning; that he stuffed the blanket into Mr. Nichols' mouth; that he wiped the blood from his hands onto his shirt, which he stuck into his back pocket; that, as he started to leave, he saw a white neighbor, who also rented from the Nicholses; that he jumped over several fences and returned to his apartment, changed clothes, and walked to the Boston Bar; and that, later that night, he hitched a ride to St. Petersburg and then to Ft. Lauderdale, where he stayed one night before turning himself in to the police department.As part of this statement, Green explained that a scar on the palm of his right hand was the result of a rivet on the butcher knife which cut him when he grabbed the knife and thrust it.He also stated that he had put the knife back in his apartment.
At trial, Green testified on his own behalf and denied having committed the murders or having confessed to the detectives.He claimed instead that Bobby either punched or stabbed Mr. Nichols when he opened the door and that he was intoxicated by cocaine.He maintained that the detectives fabricated his confession.

Id. at 648-50.

At the penalty phase, the only additional evidence presented was testimony from a prosecutor who had prosecuted Green in 1974 for attempted rape, a charge to which Green pleaded nolo contendere and for which he was adjudicated guilty by the court.Seeid. at 650.The jury at this penalty hearing voted unanimously for the death penalty.Seeid.

In sentencing Green to death, the trial judge found six aggravating circumstances — (1) that Green had previously been convicted of another capital felony involving the use or threat of violence to a person; (2) that the capital felony was committed while Green was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, a robbery or burglary; (3) that the capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest; (4) that the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain; (5) that the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (6) that the capital felony was a homicide committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.Seeid. at 650-51.The trial judge found no mitigating circumstances.Seeid. at 651.On direct appeal, Green appealed his convictions and death sentences.Seeid. at 648.Specifically, Green asserted that during the guilt phase of his trial, the trial judge erred by (1) failing to declare a mistrial after the State excluded three blacks as jurors by the exercise of peremptory challenges; (2) allowing certain alleged hearsay statements introduced by the State, depriving Green of a fair trial; and (3) allowing the State to commit fundamental error by insinuating that Green once intended to rely on the intoxication defense.Seeid. at 651.This Court determined that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the exercise of the peremptory challenges was racially neutral and not a pretext.Seeid. at 652.With regard to the remaining claims in the guilt phase, this Court concluded there was no reversible error.Seeid.

Green also presented on direct appeal the following errors with regard to the penalty phase of his trial: (1)the trial court's finding that the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest was not supported by the record; (2)the trial court unlawfully doubled the aggravating circumstances that the murders were committed in the commission of a robbery or burglary with their being committed for pecuniary gain; (3)the trial court's finding that the murders were committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner was not justified under the law; (4) the instruction that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel was unconstitutionally vague; (5) whether Green had a significant history of prior criminal activity presented a jury question that the trial court improperly failed to submit for consideration; (6)the prosecutor's comments during the penalty phase argument deprived Green of a fair sentencing hearing; and (7) the misleading comments of the trial judge and the prosecutor with regard to the function of the jury denigrated it in light of Caldwell v. Mississippi,472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231(1985).SeeGreen,583 So.2d at 652.

With regard to the first...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex
15 cases
  • Lowe v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 19 Octubre 2018
    ...the trial court did not also instruct the jury that the defendant "was not guaranteed parole at or after 25 years"); Green v. State , 907 So.2d 489, 496-99 (Fla. 2005) (finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to instruct the jury that the defendant would receive credit ......
  • Gonzalez v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 10 Abril 2014
    ...and committed during the course of a robbery; two statutory mitigators; and six categories of nonstatutory mitigators); Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489, 503–04 (Fla.2005) (finding death penalty proportionate in murders of two people in their home for money, where trial court found the same th......
  • McGirth v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 10 Noviembre 2010
    ...court will disturb a trial court's ruling "only when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable." Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489, 496 (Fla.2005) (quoting White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002)); see Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla.1999) (citing Fla. R.Cri......
  • In re Standard Criminal Jury Instructions in Capital Cases
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 2018
    ...but that there is no guarantee the defendant will be granted parole either upon serving 25 years or subsequently. See Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489, 496 (Fla. 2005).2. The punishment for this crime is either life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death.Give this instruction ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Appeals
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 Abril 2021
    ...jury that there is no guarantee that defendant would obtain parole after 25 years likewise is not an abuse of discretion. Green v. State, 907 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2005) First District Court of Appeal Without a Richardson inquiry, the standard of review is whether there was harmless error. Wilso......