Saldana v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D06-3285.,2D06-3285. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Eliseo G. SALDANA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Greer, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Eliseo Saldana appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court erroneously allowed the jury to deliberate on three separate instances of alleged possession where the State charged Mr. Saldana with only one count. Consequently, we reverse.
The information alleged that Mr. Saldana owned or had in his care, custody, possession, or control, a "9mm handgun and/or .45 caliber Ruger." See § 790.23, Fla. Stat. (2004). Although the State proceeded with one count, the information alleged further that Mr. Saldana possessed one or both guns at three separate times and places over a two-day period. He denied that he possessed any firearm. Mr. Saldana filed a motion to dismiss for duplicity and a motion for a statement of particulars.1
The trial court denied both motions but stated that it would require a special verdict form with interrogatories designed to determine whether Mr. Saldana possessed the handgun, the Ruger, both, or neither. Given the number of guns and the various dates and places of possession, this procedure would ensure juror unanimity on the precise weapon(s) possessed, and the time and place of possession, if there were a conviction.
A different judge presided at trial. He reversed the earlier ruling and used a general verdict form that did not require the jurors to specify for which of the several incidents they found Mr. Saldana guilty. Mr. Saldana argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, denying his motion for a statement of particulars, and failing to use a special verdict form with interrogatories.
We review the denial of a motion to dismiss for an allegedly defective charging document for abuse of discretion. See P.D. v. State, 666 So.2d 968, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(k)(5) permits disjunctive or alternative allegations for an offense that may be committed by one or more of several means or acts. Rule 3.140(o) provides that no motion to dismiss for a disjunctive pleading defect will be granted unless the information is so vague or indistinct as to embarrass or mislead the defendant in preparing his defense. Here, the information could not prejudice or mislead Mr. Saldana; any of the three alternative incidents would constitute the charged offense. See Grant v. State, 622 So.2d 186, 186-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Saldana's motion for a statement of particulars; the information sufficiently informed Mr. Saldana of the charge against him. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.140(n); Peel v. State, 154 So.2d 910, 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
The trial court, however, erred in using a general verdict form that did not ensure a unanimous verdict. " " Perley v. State, 947 So.2d 672, 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Robinson v. State, 881 So.2d 29, 30-31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)).
In Perley, the State charged the defendant with one count of escape but presented evidence of two unrelated escape incidents. The Fourth District reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court "compromised the jury's ability to render a unanimous verdict" by allowing the State to argue that the jury could convict the defendant for either instance of escape. Id. at 674. The court reasoned that some jurors might have convicted the defendant based on one incident while others might have convicted him based on the other incident. There was no guarantee of a unanimous finding that the same incident constituted escape. Id. at 674-75. As a result, "the trial court fundamentally erred in allowing the jury to deliberate on two separate instances of escape where [defendant] was only charged with one count of escape." Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mattison v. Jones
...the information tracks the statutory language and contains the requisite specificity. (Ex. A, p. 5). See also, e.g., Saldana v. State, 980 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that trial court did not err in denying motion for statement of particulars where the information sufficiently i......
-
Sirias v. Sec'y
...alternative allegations for an offense that may be committed by one or more of several means or acts. Id. (citing Saldana v. State, 980 So. 2d 1220, 1221-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). The post-conviction court rejected Claim Thirteen as merely speculative because Petitioner presented nothing to s......
-
Cherfrere v. State, 4D13-4071
...of the same statute, the jury cannot convict unless its verdict is unanimous as to at least one specific act." Saldana v. State , 980 So. 2d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Perley v. State , 947 So. 2d 672, 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ). Relying on Perley , Appel......
-
Wright v. State
...one article necessarily means the jury found Appellant possessed the other.Appellant argues this case is similar to Saldana v. State, 980 So.2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), in which Saldana appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The information charged h......
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...instruction, because the jury could find him guilty while disagreeing on the gun and circumstances of his possession. Saldana v. State, 980 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (See McGlade v. State , 982 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) for discussion of the proper jury instructions for practicing ......
-
Charging a crime, arraignment and pleas
...a Crime 2.1 because the jury could find him guilty while disagreeing on the gun and circumstances of his possession. Saldana v. State, 980 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) Third District Court of Appeal Hurricane Irma, which closed courthouse September 7 through 18, 2017 pursuant to administr......
-
Crimes
...instruction, because the jury could find him guilty while disagreeing on the gun and circumstances of his possession. Saldana v. State, 980 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) The court errs in refusing to sever a possession of firearm by a felon charge when the motion is made after jury selecti......