Wilkins v. State

• Decision Date: 01 May 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 5D19-970
• Citation: 295 So.3d 872
• Parties: Antwan Franswa WILKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

295 So.3d 872

Antwan Franswa WILKINS, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-970

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2020

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Roman A. Faizorin, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.

Antwan Franswa Wilkins appeals his conviction and life sentence imposed following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of first-degree murder with a firearm. Appellant argues on appeal that: (1) his motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) his motion for mistrial should have been granted. We affirm, as the learned trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for mistrial, nor did he err in denying what Appellant's trial counsel understood was an unwinnable motion for judgment of acquittal, given the overwhelming evidence that Appellant carefully planned and then carried out the revenge killing of the victim, Robert Borders.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Appellant's girlfriend, Sarah Grajales, testified that on the night of July 4, 2018, Appellant asked her to meet him in downtown Orlando so that she could do a favor for him. Although Grajales knew Appellant was in a relationship with another woman, she and he occasionally dined out and had sex. Appellant asked Grajales to go to the cigar bar where Borders worked, strike up a conversation with him, and convince Borders to meet her outside an Orlando apartment complex. Although Grajales said she did not know what Appellant had in mind, she met Borders and started laying the groundwork for their later rendezvous, just as Appellant requested. The first phase of the plan was executed perfectly.

Grajales and Borders exchanged cellphone numbers and texted each other about meeting up when Borders got off work. Sometime after 2:00 a.m. on July 5th, Borders met Grajales outside the designated apartment complex. The two of them sat in Borders’ parked car where they engaged in conversation. Apropos for a man who worked in a cigar bar, Borders began to roll a marijuana-filled blunt, which he and Grajales were going to smoke. They were relaxed and engaged with each other. Thus, the second phase of Appellant's plan was going off without a hitch.

Suddenly, Grajales saw Appellant approach the car and shoot Borders, where he sat in the driver's seat of his own car. Appellant made a clean getaway. Borders died from the gunshot injuries. Thus, the third phase of the planned killing was accomplished.

Grajales left the scene immediately and tried to eliminate any incriminating data on her cellphone that might tie her to this murder. The police caught up with Grajales, who initially denied knowing who the shooter was; however, she eventually told police she was absolutely certain that it was Appellant. She also initially faced charges as his accomplice, but she later entered into a deal in which she would testify truthfully at trial in return for which the charges against her would be dropped. She claimed that she had never seen Appellant with a gun before that incident and did not know, at the time, why Appellant shot Borders.

Appellant's wife, Sui-Fong Kimberly Wong, was one of two witnesses who testified about why Appellant murdered Borders. Wong said that in 2016, when she and Appellant were just dating, she met Borders, who told her that he wanted to buy some marijuana. According to Wong, she put Borders in touch with Appellant, who had some marijuana for sale. However, rather than going through with a purchase, Borders allegedly robbed Appellant. Two years later, Wong noticed Borders working in the cigar bar. When she shared this information with Appellant, he asked her to try to get her friend to strike up a conversation with Borders and get his phone number. Wong testified that she did just that, and her friend was successful. Wong then pretended to be her friend and texted Borders to try to arrange a meeting. However, Borders became suspicious and would not follow through. Because Appellant's initial plan to use Wong as bait failed, he had to line up Grajales to lure Borders to where Appellant could shoot him. When police contacted Wong, she could not believe that her husband was a murderer, nor did she want to believe that he was flagrantly cheating on her. Eventually, she cooperated with police and testified against Appellant.

In addition to the testimony of Grajales and Wong, the State presented a witness named Ira Lane who was Appellant's cell mate for a period of time and who also promoted himself to Appellant as a jailhouse law clerk. Lane testified that Appellant bragged about killing a young man and explained in some detail the steps he had taken to set everything up. Lane's testimony was very consistent with what Grajales told the jury. Additionally, Lane said that Appellant told him that Borders begged not to be shot. According to Lane, Appellant remarked as he was shooting Borders, "I hope it was worth it," referring to when Borders allegedly ripped off Appellant. Lane testified that he had made no deal with the State in return for his testimony, but he did have an outstanding felony charge for which he had yet to be sentenced.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

After presenting Grajales, Wong, and Lane, together with cause of death and crime scene witness testimony, the State rested its case. Appellant's trial counsel, faced with clear, convincing, and overwhelming evidence that his client had committed a premeditated murder, nevertheless made a motion for judgment of acquittal, saying simply "at this time, the Defense would move for a judgment of acquittal. That the State has failed to establish a prima facie case of first-degree murder." The State responded that, in the light most favorable to it, the evidence had established a prima facie case for first-degree murder. The court denied this motion. After the defense rested, Appellant's trial counsel asked to "renew [his] motion for judgment of acquittal based on the same grounds." The court again denied this motion.

The standard of review we employ regarding a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is de novo. Arnold v. State , 892 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). A trial court should not grant such a motion unless "the evidence adduced is such that no view that the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the State can be sustained under the law. The trial court's denial of such a motion ... will not be reversed ... if there is competent substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict." Id. (citations omitted). Given the evidence adduced...