Grimsley v. State
| Decision Date | 01 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D05-3705.,2D05-3705. |
| Citation | 939 So.2d 123 |
| Parties | Michael GRIMSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Lanitra Sanchez-Moore, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard M. Fishkin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Michael Grimsley raises four issues on review of his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. We affirm Grimsley's judgment and sentence but write to discuss one of the issues raised on appeal and an issue that was not raised on appeal.
Grimsley was charged with aggravated battery with great bodily harm or permanent disability or permanent disfigurement. The State's theory at trial was that Grimsley attacked the victim, causing great bodily harm to him by inflicting a sinus bone fracture, an orbital fracture, and a hematoma. Grimsley's defense at trial was self-defense.
During the jury charge conference, Grimsley requested instructions on both justifiable use of deadly force and justifiable use of nondeadly force. The court refused to give both instructions, and Grimsley asked for some time to decide which instruction to choose. After a recess, Grimsley chose the instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force without further objection. On appeal, Grimsley argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for both instructions.
If the evidence does not establish that the force used by the defendant was deadly or nondeadly as a matter of law, then the jury should decide the question and the defendant is entitled to instructions on both justifiable use of deadly force and justifiable use of nondeadly force. Caruthers v. State, 721 So.2d 371, 371-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Mathews v. State, 799 So.2d 265, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 727 So.2d 1062, 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The evidence in this case does not establish that the force used by Grimsley was deadly or nondeadly as a matter of law. Accordingly, Grimsley was entitled to both instructions.
However, we conclude that Grimsley did not preserve this issue for review because counsel abandoned his request for both instructions by choosing the instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force without further objection. Thus, Grimsley is not entitled to reversal on this basis.
There is an error in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosier v. State
...Some cases have in fact ruled that an appellate court may not consider an unraised fundamental error. See, e.g., Grimsley v. State, 939 So. 2d 123, 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (finding that it was "precluded from reviewing" a possible fundamental error "because it was not raised on appeal"). Cf.......
-
State v. Ouellette
...v. Allen, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 9, 918 N.E.2d 92, 94 (2009); Walker, 820 N.E.2d at 200; Cruz, 971 So.2d at 182; Grimsley v. State, 939 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 80 (West Group, LEXIS 2011). This method preserves the defendant's fundamental right to a......
-
Brown v. Shannon, Case No. 2:10-CV-259-FtM-99DNF
...4th DCA 2008); Mathis v. State, 973 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), rev. denied, 954 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2007); seealsoGrimsley v. State, 939 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Trial counsel requested only the non-deadly force self defense jury instruction (T. 245). When the Court raised the iss......
-
I.R.C. v. State
... ... before the trial court has I.R.C. argued that his detention was unlawful. In considering I.R.C.'s appeal, we are limited to the specific issues that I.R.C. has raised. "[W]e are precluded from reviewing the issue" of the lawfulness of the detention "because it was not raised on appeal." Grimsley v. State, 939 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637, 645 (Fla.1995) ("The law is well settled that failure to raise an available issue constitutes an admission that no error occurred."). Furthermore, the issue of the lawfulness of the detention was unavailable for ... ...
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...justifiable use of nondeadly force. When defendant does not request both instructions, the issue is waived for review. Grimsley v. State, 939 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) Giving the forcible felony exception to the self-defense defense is not appropriate unless the defendant is charged wit......