Midgette v. State
Decision Date | 05 December 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 5D14–1545.,5D14–1545. |
Parties | Richard MIDGETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard Midgette, Carrabelle, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Richard Midgette appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court's order denying relief on Grounds One, Two, Three, and Four without discussion. However, we reverse and remand the claims designated “Ground Two Sub–Claim” and Ground Five for further proceedings.
Following a trial, Midgette was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. Midgette asserts that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction establishing an inference that a burglary or theft conviction may be justified, in part, by an accused's unexplained possession of recently stolen property. This instruction is based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2006), which provides that “proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.” See, e.g., Nshaka v. State, 92 So.3d 843, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). However, this inference only arises when the accused's possession of recently stolen goods is personal and exclusive, or from the accused's distinct and conscious assertion of possession. Ridley v. State, 407 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). If there is joint possession, the suspects must be acting in concert. See Walker v. State, 896 So.2d 712, 720 n. 5 (Fla.2005) ( ). Merely sharing the location where stolen property was found with others, does not support the inference instruction. See Walton v. State, 404 So.2d 776, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) ( ). Likewise, “[m]ere knowledge that an offense is being committed and mere presence at the scene of the crime are insufficient to establish participation in the offense.” Garcia v. State, 899 So.2d 447, 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ( ). Similarly, mere presence nearby while someone else possesses stolen property is also not sufficient to create the inference of guilt. Waldron v. State, 979 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ( ); Bronson v. State, 926 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ( ); Adams v. State, 693 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ( ); Chamberland v. State, 429 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ( ); see also K.C.B. v. State, 715 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ( ); cf. Holcomb v. State, 946 So.2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ( ).
Midgette contends that he was simply present outside the burgled building and in or near the house where the stolen property was ultimately found, as is more fully set forth in his Ground Five. Midgette's theory of defense at trial was misidentification at the scene of the crime. However, the inference of guilt arising from possession of recently stolen goods would have negated his defense theory. The jury could have inferred guilt from Midgette's presence at the scene of the crime and the location where the stolen goods were found. Midgette's claim on this ground is facially sufficient and should not have been summarily denied.1
In Ground Five, Midgette argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, interview, and call as witnesses his brother, and co-defendant, Matthew Midgette, and his other co-defendant, Stevie Ricks. He alleges that both witnesses were available to testify and would have testified that, while Midgette was present at the burglarized house, he did not engage in any of the criminal behavior. This claim is facially sufficient. See Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583–84 (Fla.2004) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Joseph v. State, Case No. 5D17-3907
...sharing the location where stolen property was found with others does not support the inference instruction." Midgette v. State , 152 So. 3d 767, 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Although the State's evidence may have suggested Joseph's guilt, it was not "inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis......
- Borden Dairy Co. of Ala., LLC v. Kuhajda