Tisdale v. State, No. SC16-1032
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 257 So.3d 357 |
| Parties | Eriese Alphonso TISDALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. SC16-1032 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 2018 |
257 So.3d 357
Eriese Alphonso TISDALE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. SC16-1032
Supreme Court of Florida.
November 8, 2018
Jeffrey H. Garland of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A., Fort Pierce, Florida, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Lisa-Marie Lerner and Donna M. Perry, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee
PER CURIAM.
Eriese Alphonso Tisdale was convicted of one count of first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a firearm, one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and one count of eluding or fleeing a police officer with lights and siren. After the penalty phase, the jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of nine to three on the murder charge and the trial court imposed a death sentence, with lesser sentences on the other charges. This is Tisdale's direct appeal, and we have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Tisdale raises no issues relating to his guilt phase trial and we find the evidence sufficient to support the murder charge.1 Accordingly, we affirm all convictions. Tisdale's only sentencing issues relate to the sentence of death, and we affirm without discussion the sentences on all lesser convictions. However, we vacate his death sentence because we cannot conclude that the Hurst2 error in his case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we remand his case to the trial court for a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst .
FACTS
On the morning of February 28, 2013, Sergeant Gary Morales of the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle being driven by Tisdale, a convicted felon. Tisdale, the sole occupant of his vehicle, attempted to flee as Sergeant Morales radioed for backup and pursued Tisdale. Tisdale stopped in a residential neighborhood, catching the attention of multiple residents. Sergeant Morales drove slightly past Tisdale and then came
to a sudden stop as well. As Sergeant Morales backed up his patrol car and opened his driver's side door, Tisdale rapidly exited his vehicle with a drawn handgun, rushed Sergeant Morales before Morales could leave the seat of his patrol car or access his own firearm, and fired a burst of shots into the vehicle, hitting Sergeant Morales three times and killing him. Three eye-witnesses—one police officer and two civilians—witnessed Tisdale fire the fatal shots. Tisdale then ran back toward his vehicle while aiming his gun at another police officer who had responded to Sergeant Morales' call for backup, jumped back into his vehicle, and continued his flight. Several officers pursued Tisdale with their lights and sirens activated.
Eventually, one of the pursuing deputies rammed Tisdale's vehicle, causing it to "spin out" and ending the chase. Tisdale was arrested without further incident at the scene of the collision. Police seized Tisdale's handgun, used in the shooting, from the vehicle at the time of his arrest. A forensic biologist testified at trial that the DNA found on Tisdale's gun matched DNA samples obtained from Tisdale. The firearms examiner testified that the seven shell casings recovered from the area where Tisdale exited his vehicle and ran toward Sergeant Morales's car had been fired from Tisdale's gun. Forensic experts also linked bullets recovered from Sergeant Morales's body and vehicle to Tisdale's gun.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Tisdale's jury returned its guilty verdicts on October 1, 2015. After hearing evidence bearing on an appropriate sentence, the jury returned its penalty phase verdict on October 9, 2015, with nine of the twelve jurors recommending death. At the time, section 921.141(3), Florida Statutes (2015), authorized a trial judge to impose a death sentence following a death recommendation by at least seven jurors. The judge released the jurors from further service immediately after receiving the penalty phase recommendation.
The court held a Spencer3 hearing on November 17, 2015, and then set a final sentencing for January 15, 2016.
On January 12, 2016, three days before the scheduled sentencing, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 624, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), declaring "Florida's sentencing scheme" unconstitutional. The trial court postponed sentencing and eventually reset the sentencing hearing for May 9, 2016. Prior to sentencing, the Florida Legislature enacted chapter 2016-13, Laws of Florida, which became effective on March 7, 2016. The new law authorized imposition of the death penalty, but only if at least ten jurors recommended a death sentence. See § 921.141(2) - (3), Fla. Stat. (2016).
Over Tisdale's objection that death was no longer a valid legal sentence without at least ten jurors voting to recommend the death penalty, the trial court imposed a death sentence under section 921.141(3) as to the murder charge, finding the nonunanimous death recommendation to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the jury's unanimous verdict on charges that would factually establish two aggravating factors: (1) the victim of the capital felony was a law enforcement officer engaged in lawful performance of his duties; and (2) a prior violent felony conviction (based on the contemporaneous conviction of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a firearm). The
trial court relied only on the two aggravating factors found by the jury as part of its verdict, assigning great weight to both.4 The portion of chapter 2016-13 authorizing imposition of a death sentence based upon a recommendation of ten jurors would later be declared unconstitutional in Perry v. State , 210 So.3d 630, 640 (Fla. 2016) (applying Hurst , which held that a death sentence could not be legally imposed absent a unanimous death recommendation by the penalty phase jury).
ANALYSIS
Tisdale raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether chapter 2016-13 entitles him to a life sentence without the possibility of parole; (2) whether he is entitled to automatic commutation of his death sentence to a life sentence without the possibility of parole pursuant to section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes (2012) ; and (3) whether he is entitled to a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst . Having found the evidence sufficient to support Tisdale's first-degree murder conviction, we address Tisdale's claims that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Hurst , as well as his alternative claims that we should remand for a life sentence.
Chapter 2016-13
Tisdale first argues that chapter 2016-13 should apply to his case and entitles him to a life sentence without the possibility of parole based upon double jeopardy principles. We reject this argument. Tisdale's jury was sworn and rendered its recommendation before the passage of chapter 2016-13. Because the
recommendation supported imposition of the death penalty at the time the jury was sworn and jeopardy attached, double jeopardy principles do not bar a new penalty phase trial. Cf. Victorino v. State , 241 So.3d 48, 50 (Fla. 2018) (determining that a defendant sentenced to death following nonunanimous jury recommendations "has not been acquitted of the death penalty" when the law at the time of trial would have permitted a death sentence, such that retrial is not barred by double jeopardy); see also, Hurst v. State , No. SC17-302, 2017 WL 1023762, at *1 (Fla. Mar. 16, 2017) (summarily rejecting as "without merit" claims based on double jeopardy grounds that the State is precluded from seeking the death penalty in Hurst resentencing proceedings); Poland v. Arizona , 476 U.S. 147, 154-57, 106 S.Ct. 1749, 90 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986) (holding that reimposing the death penalty on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Damme, No. 19-1139
...may certainly be allowable, and even required, in the case of a juvenile offender. By way of example, one recent case, Tisdale v. State , 257 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 2018), notes the "criminality" of the minor defendant's father as it was referenced in the defendant's sentencing order, and noted t......
-
State v. Damme, No. 19-1139
...may certainly be allowable, and even required, in the case of a juvenile offender. By way of example, one recent case, Tisdale v. State , 257 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 2018), notes the "criminality" of the minor defendant's father as it was referenced in the defendant's sentencing order, and noted t......