Raja v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D19-1210,4D19-1210 |
| Citation | 317 So.3d 139 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Nouman Khan RAJA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Steven H. Malone of Steven H. Malone, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Melynda L. Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
In this tragic case, the defendant, a former police officer, appeals his conviction and sentence for manslaughter by culpable negligence and attempted first degree murder for the fatal shooting of the victim. The defendant raises twelve issues. Having reviewed the record, we find no error. We write to address the double jeopardy, merger, and single homicide rule issues raised, and affirm on the remaining issues without further comment.
The victim's car broke down on the offramp of I-95 at PGA Boulevard while he was on his way home from performing with his band. The victim had a registered firearm inside a case on the passenger seat of his car. The victim, a friend who came to the scene, and a Road Ranger were unable to fix the car. The victim then called his brother, who offered to come help or call a tow service, but the victim did not want to leave his drums in the car unattended.
Around 3:15 a.m., the victim called AT&T Roadside Assistance to arrange for a tow truck. The call was recorded. As the victim provided information to the AT&T Roadside Assistance operator, the defendant pulled up in front of the victim's car in an unmarked van.
The defendant was on-duty that night, but was dressed in plain clothes without anything identifying him as law enforcement.1 The defendant was headed to a nightclub in response to a radio callout when he first saw the victim's car. He initially thought the car was abandoned. The defendant called over the radio to advise there was an abandoned or possibly disabled vehicle on the side of the road.
The defendant pulled over to investigate and determine whether the vehicle needed to be towed. In hindsight, the defendant was "kicking himself" for pulling in front of the vehicle because it violated law enforcement's "golden rule." Had he known the vehicle was occupied, he would never have put himself "in a fatal funnel position like this by pulling in front of it."
While the defendant investigated the vehicle, he was not wearing his duty gun or vest. He had his department-approved backup gun in a waistband holster inside with his shirt tucked in.
According to the defendant's sworn walkthrough statement, as he got close to the vehicle, the door swung open, and the victim jumped out. The victim then said, "I'm okay, I'm okay, man," at which point the defendant said, "Hey, man, police, can I help you?" When the defendant said "police," the victim "jumped back."
The defendant remembered the victim drawing a gun at him that he "swear[s]" had a LaserMax laser and guide rod on it. When the defendant saw the red light flashing at him, he shouted, "Drop the gun." The victim did not drop the gun. The defendant then pulled the trigger two to three times and the victim started running.
The defendant had his cell phone on him and dialed 911 because he had left his radio in the van. The "whole time," the defendant was:
giving commands, ... yelling and screaming. I'm like ‘Drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun.’ And as he's running, he gets about like right—just a little past where the guardrail starts, and he's he does this number, and I see his whole body spin, and I saw like a flash, a silver flash, it was like a metallic flash come at me, and in my head, I immediately [ ] said, aim, aim, aim, and I was like, aim, ... and I picked that front sight, right in the center mass, and I just pulled the trigger three times, and I saw him drop, and I saw something silver fall, and at this point I was still on the phone with dispatch.
The transcript of the AT&T Roadside Assistance operator, who had remained on the call with the defendant, reflected a very different version of what happened:
According to the AT&T Roadside Assistance operator, the entire recording occurred over the course of approximately three minutes.
Two guests staying at a nearby hotel heard the gunshots in sequence—three shots followed by a pause and three more shots. One guest stepped onto the balcony after the second set of shots and saw a man with a gun "stepping backwards from the area, walking backwards, holding a gun in one hand and his cellphone in another hand." She did not see anyone else. The man she saw with a gun was "pretty far away" from the vehicle that she saw parked on the side of the off-ramp. He had the gun aimed towards the same direction where she later saw a dead body in the grass. He looked like he was wearing dark pants, a shirt, and a hat; she could not tell he was a police officer.
Thirty-three seconds after the final shot rang out, the Palm Beach Gardens emergency communications operator received a call from the defendant. The call was also recorded. The first thing the communications operator heard was the defendant saying, "drop the f---ing gun right now."
The defendant then identified himself and stated that he shot a man "at least three, four times" on the off-ramp behind the hotel and that the man was down. In the background, he again stated, "drop the gun."
The defendant then described the man he shot to the communications operator: a "[b]lack male, wearing all black, dreads, had a silver handgun in his right hand." The defendant explained, The defendant then began to walk back to his vehicle. After getting to his radio, the defendant was told to hang up his phone and he did.
The defendant stated on the radio that he saw the man "drop something, but that's when I started to walk back towards the van;" he lost contact with the man when "[h]e dropped down ... in this area between the [hotel] and the 95 on ramp [sic]."
A sergeant, who was first to arrive on scene, saw the defendant standing in front of his van near the hood of the victim's vehicle. The defendant wasn't wearing a tactical vest over anything identifying him as a law enforcement officer. The defendant later told the sergeant that he had not worn his tactical vest during the shooting.
The defendant told the sergeant the victim had a gun, he ordered the victim to drop it, the victim "ran north in the grass between the off-ramp and the" hotel, and the defendant saw the victim "throw what he believed was a silver gun" approximately twenty feet to the rear of his vehicle in the grass. With the use of flashlights, the sergeant, the defendant, and other officers found the victim's body lying face down in the grass with his head towards the hotel and arms underneath him. The officers rolled the victim over to ensure there were no other weapons.
The victim was pronounced dead on scene at 3:33 a.m.
When investigating the scene, officers "saw six shell casings that were along the paved portion of the ramp near" the victim's car. The gun the defendant saw the victim throw was found in a location near where the defendant told the sergeant he saw it thrown although it was about seventy feet from the vehicle. Three casings were also noted in the roadway and measurements were taken.
A firearm was discovered in the grass at the base of a pole just off the road. The victim's body was located 124 feet, five inches from the firearm and 205 feet, four inches from his left front tire.
After the shooting, the defendant gave a sworn walkthrough statement detailing the events which was introduced into evidence. Notably, the defendant told investigators the victim held the gun in his right hand. The victim was left-handed.
Investigators discovered the recorded call between the victim and the AT&T Roadside Assistance operator. When they compared the recording and the defendant's sworn statement, discrepancies were obvious.
Investigators performed a light reflectivity test and found the red traffic signal light...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. State
...State , in which the Fourth District concluded that manslaughter and attempted first-degree murder were not degree variants. 317 So. 3d 139, 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Stephens points to the Court's notation that the "homicide statute ... expressly identifies three degrees of murder, as well ......
-
Blair v. State
...192, 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Further, we review de novo all allegations of double jeopardy and illegal sentencing. Raja v. State , 317 So. 3d 139, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).Appellant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to correct his sentence since it took place more than one yea......
-
Blair v. State
... ... We ... review de novo whether a court has subject matter ... jurisdiction. Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So.2d 192, ... 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Further, we review de novo all ... allegations of double jeopardy and illegal sentencing ... Raja v. State, 317 So.3d 139, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA ... 2021) ... Appellant ... argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to correct ... his sentence since it took place more than one year after he ... was originally sentenced and thus exceeded the "60 ... ...