Green v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. SC02-2315.,SC02-2315. |
| Citation | Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489 (Fla. 2005) |
| Parties | Alphonso GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida 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.
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.
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:
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 FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
Lowe v. State
...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
...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
...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
...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 ......
-
Appeals
...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......