Mickel v. State, 4D04-1482.

Decision Date07 June 2006
Docket NumberNo. 4D04-1482.,4D04-1482.
Citation929 So.2d 1192
PartiesJimmy MICKEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Michael Antinori, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GROSS, J.

Jimmy Mickel appeals his convictions of three counts of armed kidnapping and two counts of armed robbery. We affirm, finding no error in the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on the defense of duress.

This case arose from a double homicide at a Waffle House on March, 11, 2002. Barbara Nunn, an eyewitness who survived the shooting, worked at the restaurant with Christine De La Rosa, a waitress, and Willy Absolu, a cook. Nunn knew Mickel from working with him at the Waffle House. Nunn and Mickel often discussed a nightclub where Mickel held a second job as a doorman. Nunn went to the club several times and Mickel let her in for free.

At 4:30 a.m., Mickel and Gerhard Hojan1 entered the Waffle House. Nunn was familiar with Hojan as Mickel's sidekick. She described Hojan as a "gofer," who did everything Mickel told him to do. When Mickel worked at the Waffle House, Hojan often sat in a booth, waiting for Mickel to finish his shift.

Mickel and Hojan sat down in a booth, ordered, and ate. When they finished, Mickel stood up and walked out of the restaurant. Hojan went to the cash register to pay. Before handing over the check, Hojan looked outside to Mickel in the parking lot. De La Rosa reached to take the bill from Hojan. At that point, Nunn heard a clicking sound.

Nunn turned and saw Hojan pointing a gun at De La Rosa. De La Rosa pleaded with Hojan, saying, "I have a six month old son named Kyle. I want to see him again."

Mickel reentered the restaurant, walking quickly, hugging the wall, and heading toward the restrooms. Though Hojan and Mickel did not speak, Nunn felt that Mickel was in control. She testified that Mickel was the mastermind who thought of everything, while Hojan waddled behind like a dog on a leash.

Hojan ordered Nunn, De La Rosa, and Absolu to the back of the restaurant. The three employees headed single file through the kitchen. As they went through the swinging door, Nunn saw Mickel using long bolt cutters to break the lock on the storage area. Nunn surmised that Mickel brought the bolt cutters with him, because she had never before seen bolt cutters in the restaurant. After Mickel broke the lock, the door opened and everyone walked into the storage area. Nunn asked if they were going to be okay. Mickel did not respond. Hojan told the three employees to go into the back freezer. The trio complied and the freezer door closed.

Soon, Hojan returned to the freezer and asked for the employees' cell phones. None of the employees had cell phones, so Hojan left. When he returned, he told the employees to put their money on the shelf. Nunn placed about $40 on the shelf, De La Rosa put down between $140 and $160, and Absolu said he had no money on him. Hojan took the cash and left, closing the door behind him.

When Hojan returned to the freezer, he told the victims to get on their knees and put their hands on their heads. Absolu and De La Rosa complied but Nunn did not. She tried to talk Hojan out of shooting them, but he kept telling her to turn around. Hojan shot Nunn and she fell. Nunn opened her eyes and before closing them again, she saw De La Rosa get shot.

The next thing Nunn remembered was knocking away Absolu's foot or leg. She crawled through the freezer and peeked outside to see if Mickel or Hojan were still around. Nunn went out the back door and made it across the parking lot to a gas station, where the attendant called 911.

The police searched the Waffle House shortly after the shooting. They found the bodies of Absolu and De La Rosa in the freezer. De La Rosa had gunshot wounds to the neck and breast. Absolu had gunshot wounds to the head, neck, and arm. A black metal drop box was dangling behind the cash register, with its padlock cut off. There were three other cut padlocks, two empty cash drawers, and coins and coin wrappers scattered in one of the offices. A crime scene technician collected five bullet casings from the cooler. An expert witness testified that (1) a gun found in Hojan's truck fired the bullets that killed the victims, and (2) at least two of the locks were cut by bolt cutters retrieved from Hojan's truck.

At 6:40 a.m. on the morning of the shooting, Hojan entered a convenience store and used cash, with much of it in small change, to purchase two money orders for $411.56 each. This transaction was captured on a videotape; the tape showed Mickel walking around a truck parked at the gas pumps outside.

Later that morning, Mickel and Hojan went to a Wal-Mart to shop for shoes. They each bought a pair and discarded the shoes they had worn at the Waffle House.

After his arrest, Mickel gave a taped statement to the investigating detectives. His version of the events was that when he woke up at 3:00 a.m., Hojan said he was hungry and wanted a waffle. Mickel and Hojan drove to the Waffle House. After they finished eating, Hojan got up to pay and Mickel went outside. When he turned back, Hojan was pointing a gun at the blonde waitress. Mickel went back inside as Hojan directed the employees to the back of the restaurant. Mickel claimed that Hojan then told him to get the bolt cutters from the car. Mickel heard several thumps, which he said did not sound like gunfire, but rather like boxes being moved.

In the statement, Mickel said he went outside to the truck, got the bolt cutters, came back inside and cut the padlocks to the manager's office and the cash drawer inside. He placed the money in a white plastic bag that Hojan held. The men left through the back door. Hojan and Mickel drove back to their house. On the way, there was some conversation about the employees knowing who Mickel and Hojan were and Hojan told Mickel, "I took care of them."

Mickel said that he was shocked about what happened, and scared that he and Hojan would get in trouble because they had pulled a gun and robbed the place and Hojan had killed people. Mickel claimed he only went along with the robbery "to be cool."

Mickel's fiancé, law student Shannon Murphy, testified that she lived with Mickel and Hojan for almost two years. She said that Hojan and Mickel were good friends and that Hojan used to follow Mickel around like a big puppy. Murphy lent Hojan one of her textbooks about serial killers. Hojan and Mickel were at the trailer when Murphy went to bed on the night of the shootings.

Murphy heard about the Waffle House incident the next day at school. Unable to reach Mickel by phone, she did not talk to him until she arrived home around 8:00 p.m. She found Mickel sleeping; he had been sleeping all day. Murphy asked if he had heard about the Waffle House shootings. Mickel said he had but wanted to talk later because he was half asleep.

Mickel neither testified at trial nor put on any evidence. He requested an instruction on duress or necessity, arguing that Hojan was just trying to "get cool, so [he] could get [Hojan] to go away from [the victims];" that Mickel was a 165-pound skinny defendant and Hojan was a 350-pound armed bouncer who had been reading books about serial killers. The trial court denied the request.

The jury acquitted Mickel of the murder and attempted murder counts and found him guilty of three counts of armed kidnapping and two counts of armed robbery.

The trial judge ordered a Pre-Sentence Investigation. The PSI recited the circumstances surrounding the crimes and detailed, among other things, Hojan's statement to the police:

[Hojan] stated that he walked out of cooler again, and that's when the defendant told him, "We can't leave any witnesses." Hojan stated that is when he walked back inside the cooler and then shot them both. He stated that when survivor Nunn was shot and fell to the floor, the other girl, referring to Christina De La Rosa, "was screaming and she started like trying to climb underneath the racks and I shot her twice."

The PSI also stated that Mickel never expressed any remorse for the victims or their families, and that he blamed his situation on the court and on State Attorney Michael Satz. A copy of the PSI was furnished to Mickel before sentencing.

At sentencing, Mickel requested...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lewis v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 28 May 2020
    ...that the defendant avoided must outweigh the harm caused by committing the offense or any lesser including offense. Mickel v. State, 929 So. 2d 1192, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citations omitted). Notably, a threat of future harm is not sufficient to prove the defense of duress. Id. Here, th......
  • Hojan v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 31 January 2017
    ...at 426.Failure to Consider the Decision in Former Codefendant's Case Hojan argues that the following excerpt from Mickel v. State , 929 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), demonstrates appellate counsel's ineffectiveness as to this subclaim because it lends clear support for a conclusion that M......
  • Hojan v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 3 September 2015
    ...that Hojan's codefendant substantially dominated him. To support his claim, Hojan cites the following excerpt from Mickel v. State, 929 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) :The judge, after reviewing the [pre-sentencing investigation report], hearing comments from the victim's families, consider......
  • Salas v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 14 December 2007
    ...it may have been, as long as there was some evidence to support it. See Campbell v. State, 577 So.2d 932 (Fla.1991); Mickel v. State, 929 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Salas requested the court give Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(k) on duress at the charge conference but the court was anno......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Pretrial motions and defenses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 April 2021
    ...errs in failing to give an independent act instruction. Charles v. State, 945 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (See Mickel v. State , 929 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) for discussion of the duress defense.) Defendant claimed that he broke out the window of a police car because he had been p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT