Noetzel v. State
| Decision Date | 10 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. SC20-466,SC20-466 |
| Citation | 328 So.3d 933 |
| Parties | Barry A. NOETZEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Baya Harrison, III, Monticello, Florida, for Appellant
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Jason W. Rodriguez and Michael T. Kennett, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee
Barry A. Noetzel appeals his judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death. We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const., and for the reasons below affirm Noetzel's conviction and sentence of death.
While serving a life sentence at Mayo Correctional Institution, Noetzel joined with his cellmate, Jesse Bell, in developing a plan to murder corrections officer James Newman, whom they disliked, and a fellow inmate, whom they would select at a later date. They reduced their plan to writing in the following twelve steps, which they titled "Countdown To Extention" [sic]:
In accordance with their plan, Noetzel and Bell got on a vegan diet, which allowed them greater access to the area of the kitchen where Officer Newman worked. They used other inmates to scout the layout of the kitchen, drew a diagram of the area where Officer Newman worked, and obtained pieces of metal and fence, which they sharpened into weapons. They also selected their fellow inmate Donald H. Eastwood, Jr., to kill because they believed him to be homosexual and a child molester.
On June 26, 2019, after Noetzel lured Eastwood to his and Bell's cell, Noetzel stabbed Eastwood in the eyes using their homemade weapons while Bell restrained and manually choked Eastwood. Noetzel hung up a sheet to prevent anyone from seeing inside the cell, and after confirming Eastwood was dead, Noetzel and Bell covered Eastwood's body with a blanket and hid the body under a bunk in the cell. They also cleaned up Eastwood's blood with a towel and hung up a note in their cell that read,
Noetzel and Bell then went to the prison's dining area, where they attempted to stab Officer Newman to death with another of their homemade weapons. Other officers intervened in the attack on Officer Newman, who was seriously injured but survived; apprehended Noetzel and Bell in the dining hall; and discovered Eastwood's body in Noetzel and Bell's cell, after Bell told a corrections officer that there was a dead "chomo" in his cell, with "chomo" being prison slang for "child molester."
Consistent with Noetzel's description of the killing, the medical examiner testified that Eastwood's cause of death was "sharp force trauma to the left eye and brain[,] with neck compression," that the manner of death was homicide, and that the puncture wound to Eastwood's left eye—which was "badly wounded" and "basically just a bloody pulp"—would have been "particularly painful."
Noetzel and Bell were jointly indicted on October 29, 2019, in a five-count indictment for the first-degree premeditated murder of Eastwood; the attempted first-degree murder of Officer Newman with a weapon; and conspiracy to commit the first-degree murder of Officer Newman. In the fourth and fifth counts, Noetzel and Bell were each indicted, respectively, on one count of possession of a weapon by an inmate.
At Noetzel's first appearance and arraignment, after appointed counsel entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf, Noetzel personally addressed the trial court, stating that he would like a speedy trial, that he "want[ed] to enter a plea of guilty right now," and that he wanted to represent himself and waive his right to counsel. The presiding judge informed Noetzel that he was filling in for the trial judge, and that it would be up to the assigned judge to conduct the Faretta2 hearing required by Noetzel's unequivocal request for self-representation. The presiding judge also told Noetzel, "[I]f you want to put that in writing, that you want to represent yourself, by all means, do that," so that the assigned judge could "consider [it] at the appropriate time."
Thereafter, Noetzel put his pro se requests in writing, filing a demand for speedy trial, a motion to proceed pro se, and a motion to discharge appointed counsel. Noetzel then filed a pro se "notice of inquiry" and a pro se motion to compel a hearing. In addition, Noetzel filed a pro se letter questioning why no hearing had been held on his motion to proceed pro se; in the letter, Noetzel reiterated that he had "attempted to enter a plea of guilty on all charges" at his arraignment. Noetzel's pro se letter explained his strategy:
I fully understand the dictates of Faretta and am knowingly and intelligently waiving my right to counsel. Thereafter, I will be entering a plea of guilty to preserve judicial resources and bring closure to all parties concerned with the outcome of this case.
Following Noetzel's pro se filings, three proceedings relevant to the issues raised in this appeal occurred: (1) a motion hearing, at which the trial court granted Noetzel's request for self-representation, found Noetzel competent, and accepted Noetzel's guilty plea, (2) a bench penalty-phase proceeding that occurred after an expert evaluated Noetzel and found him competent, and (3) a final penalty-phase hearing that occurred after the presentence investigation (PSI).
On January 21, 2020, the trial judge assigned to Noetzel's case held a hearing on Noetzel's pro se motions. At the hearing, Noetzel personally addressed the court and listed his requests, namely that he wished to discharge counsel, represent himself, enter a plea of guilty on all charges, demand a speedy trial, "waive all [of his] rights to a jury," and be sentenced by the trial court.
The trial court first addressed Noetzel's request to invoke his right to self-representation by conducting a Faretta inquiry. The lengthy inquiry included explanations by the trial court of the advantages of counsel and the disadvantages of self-representation, all of which Noetzel indicated that he understood. Noetzel's responses to the trial court's questions went beyond simple "yeses" and "noes." For example, in response to the trial court's question as to whether Noetzel had "any questions about the dangers and disadvantages of representing [himself]" that the trial court had explained, Noetzel responded, "Oh, what does it say, a lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client." Noetzel then stated that he was "still prepared to go forward with it," even though he understood it was "[c]ompletely inadvisable" to proceed on his own. In response to follow-up questions by the trial court as to why he wanted to represent himself despite knowing it was inadvisable to do so, Noetzel explained that he wanted to quickly plead guilty because, 3
During the Faretta inquiry, the trial court also questioned Noetzel as to whether he had "ever been diagnosed and/or treated for any mental illness or disorder." Noetzel responded, "Depression." The trial court followed up by asking Noetzel if he was taking any medication, and when Noetzel said he was not "at this moment," the trial court questioned whether Noetzel had been prescribed medication. When Noetzel said yes, the trial court asked Noetzel to explain why he was not taking his prescribed medication, and Noetzel said that he "wanted to have a clear mind before I got to this point." Then, the following exchange occurred between Noetzel and the trial court:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Steiger v. State
-
Carrion v. State
...added)). Granting relief constituting a reversal based upon such error is out of the question. See § 924.051(3) ; Noetzel v. State , 328 So. 3d 933, 945 (Fla. 2021) ("[W]here ... the errors alleged on appeal were not preserved, reversal is warranted only if the defendant establishes fundame......
-
Brewster v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corrs.
... STEPHEN BREWSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees. No. 21-11058United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitMarch 21, 2022 ... DO NOT ... counsel differently and requires a Faretta inquiry ... for the former, but not the latter. Noetzel v ... State, 328 So.3d 933 (Fla. 2021). The certificate we ... issued is limited to the failure to renew an offer to appoint ... ...
-
Barrett v. State
... ... hearing, and the immediately subsequent sentencing hearing; ... and (2) not offering counsel to the defendant at the ... sentencing hearing ... On the ... defendant's first argument, we affirm. See Noetzel v ... State, 328 So.3d 933, 951 (Fla. 2021) ("[A]bsent a ... substantial change in circumstances that would cause the ... trial court to question its original ruling on the ... defendant's request for self-representation, there is no ... concomitant requirement to ... ...