Williams v. State, 60546
| Decision Date | 08 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 60546,60546 |
| Citation | 438 So.2d 781 |
| Parties | Richard Sherman WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Richard A. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This case is before this Court on appeal of a judgment from the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Bradford County. Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and received the death penalty. He appeals the conviction and the attendant sentence. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. Both the judgment and the sentence are hereby affirmed.
Evidence at trial established the facts to follow. In the early morning of July 16, 1980, Roy Huff began delivering breakfast to the inmates on Q-wing of Florida State Prison. Huff, himself an inmate, occupied the position of "runner" and was assigned by prison officials to bring food to the various cells. As Huff prepared to hand defendant/Williams his food tray, Williams brandished a handcrafted spear, shoved the shaft through the bars, and lunged toward the man. Huff was struck in the midsection and shortly thereafter died from the stab wound.
Correctional Officer Dearing was working the midnight-8:00 a.m. shift on Q-wing the night of the slaying. Dearing watched as Huff fed cells 1 and 2. As Huff approached Williams' cell he saw the man (Huff) fall back from the door clutching his chest. Later Dearing heard Huff state, "Bushax has stabbed me." (Bushax is defendant's nickname.) Dearing and Sergeant Gann reached the injured inmate whereupon Gann inquired, "You know who did it, don't you, Huff?", and Huff replied, "Yes sir, Bushax Williams."
Thereafter prison inspector Edward Sands took Williams from his cell and interviewed him as a suspect in the Huff killing. Prior to any dialogue between prisoner and inspector, Williams was advised of his Miranda rights, of which he executed an effective waiver. During the interview Williams gave an account of the slaying, explained how he had fashioned the murder weapon, and told where he had disposed of the weapon after the stabbing. Following defendant's directions, prison officials located the handcrafted spear.
At the trial in February of 1981 Williams was found guilty of first-degree murder as charged. The court then adjudged the defendant guilty and announced that the penalty phase would begin after a lunch break of two hours. Defense counsel moved for a continuance of the penalty phase in order to prepare for submission of appropriate mitigating circumstances. The trial judge said he would take the motion under advisement, but it would be well for both parties to assume that the penalty phase would begin immediately after the two-hour recess. When the court reconvened, the judge announced his ruling denying a continuance of the penalty phase.
During the ensuing penalty phase defense counsel presented no witnesses. Thereafter the jury returned a recommendation that the death penalty be imposed and a pre-sentence investigation was ordered by the court.
A defense motion for new trial was filed on February 26, 1981, after which defendant contacted Judge Green by letter disavowing the motion and stating his belief that defense counsel had provided ineffective representation. At the sentencing proceeding the court stated that defendant's letter would become part of the amended motion for new trial and specifically ruled as follows:
The allegations of incompetence of counsel made by the Defendant raised prior and during trial and again reraised at the conclusion of trial, but prior to sentencing are each considered by the Court and the allegations thereby specifically overruled and the motion denied.
My purpose in this statement is to make abundantly clear for further appellate review that the argument was preserved by the Defendant prior to the time of sentencing.
At the conclusion of the pre-sentence investigation the court found two aggravating circumstances--that defendant was under sentence of imprisonment for second-degree murder, and that he had been convicted of second-degree murder, a crime of violence. The court found no mitigating circumstances, and thereafter sentenced Williams to death by electrocution.
Williams first contends that the trial court failed to ascertain that the jury understood that its verdict must be unanimous as to "degree" as well as to "guilt". He further argues that as a result of such failure there was "manifest confusion" on the part of the jury which deprived him of his right to a unanimous verdict in a capital case as guaranteed by both the United States and Florida Constitutions and by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.440. After thorough review of the record we find no merit to Williams' contentions.
The alleged confusion in the case sub judice stems from the following interchange between the trial judge and jury foreman:
And then there is an abbreviation that I don't understand.
" ... guilt charge?"
The abbreviation is a C with a dash over it.
First question is, is that a valid communication from the jury?
Here, after the court verbalized the question, "Does the jury have to have unanimous agreement with the degree along with the guilt charged?", the jury foreman responded, "We found the answer". The foreman expressly represented to the judge that the jury had found the answer, and that it was no longer necessary for the court to supply it. We find no evidence of "manifest confusion" emanating from this interchange. In fact, the judge showed sound judgment by not delving into the matter. For the trial judge to intervene and supply answers to questions not properly before the court would create just the "manifest confusion" which our judicial system seeks to avoid.
The unanimity and integrity of the jury's verdict is further supported by the verdict form returned by the jury, which provided:
VERDICT
We, the jury, find the Defendant Richard Sherman Williams, guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment, so say we all.
(Emphasis added.) The record shows that after this verdict was published the jury was polled, with each juror personally accepting responsibility for the verdict. These factors alone firmly establish the jury's understanding that its verdict must be unanimous as to degree as well as to guilt.
In addition, the jury had in its possession during deliberations a written copy of the judge's instructions, which provided in pertinent part:
In the case of first degree murder, if you find a conviction of first degree murder it will be necessary for you to consider and recommend to the Court which of the two penalties, by a majority vote, you recommend should be imposed. The imposition of the penalty with those two choices and your recommendation lie solely with the Court.
Your verdict finding the Defendant either guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. The verdict must be the verdict of each juror, as well as of the jury as a whole.
The indictment charges the crime of: murder in the first degree, which includes, as a matter of law, the lesser crimes of:
1. not guilty;
2. guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment;
3. guilty of murder in the second degree;
4. guilty of murder in the third degree; or
5. guilty of manslaughter.
(Emphasis added.) These instructions, without question, mandate that the verdict, which contains guilt and degree, be unanimous. Moreover, these same instructions provided the correct answer to the jury's withdrawn question, and it is logical to assume that the jury withdrew its question after referring to the instructions.
In review, the jury withdrew its question, returned a verdict explicitly stating that there was unanimous agreement that Williams was guilty of murder in the first-degree, and was subsequently polled as to its decision. These measures, when viewed in total, more than dispel all traces of the alleged jury confusion.
Williams also challenges the sentence, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance of the penalty phase when the defense counsel represented that he was unprepared to present any evidence of mitigating circumstances.
The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. Durcan v. State, 350 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mills v. State, 280 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Douglas v. State, 216 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This principle remains intact even in situations where the death penalty is of issue. See Cooper v. State, 336 So.2d 1133 (Fla.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 2200, 53 L.Ed.2d 239 (1977). This Court in Cooper announced:
While death penalty cases command our closest scrutiny, it is still the obligation of an appellate court to review with caution the exercise of experienced discretion by a trial judge in matters such as a motion for a continuance.
336 So.2d at 1138 (emphasis added). We find no evidence that the trial judge abused the above mentioned discretion. Appellant moved for a continuance at the conclusion of the guilt phase of the trial. The trial judge's decision to deny the motion was not made in haste. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...1181 (Fla. 1985); Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038 (Fla.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984); Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1109, 104 S.Ct. 1617, 80 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984); Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied,......
-
Frazier v. State
...As a general rule, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal. Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 781 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1109, 104 S.Ct. 1617, 80 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984). In the instant case, however, the trial court resolved the f......
-
Williams v. Florida
...rejecting petitioner's claim that the trial court's denial of a continuance constituted an abuse of discretion. Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 781, 785-786 (1983). The Florida Supreme Court justified its decision by reference to the wide discretion accorded to trial judges in determining whet......
-
Woods v. State
...discretion. Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984); Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 781 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1109, 104 S.Ct. 1617, 80 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984); Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.......