Woods v. State, No. 5D11–456.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 95 So.3d 925 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D11–456. |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2012 |
| Parties | Jason Eugene WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
95 So.3d 925
Jason Eugene WOODS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D11–456.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Aug. 3, 2012.
[95 So.3d 926]
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Jason Eugene Woods seeks recall of this Court's per curiam opinion affirming his conviction, suggesting conflict with Alvarado v. State, –––So.3d ––––, 2012 WL 2600053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), decided the same day mandate issued in the above-styled case. We grant Woods' Motion to Recall Mandate and substitute this opinion.
Woods appeals his conviction of second-degree murder with a firearm for which he is serving a life sentence that carries a 10–
[95 So.3d 927]
20–life 1 mandatory minimum of twenty-five years. Finding no merit to Woods' argument as to the admission of evidence or the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, we affirm without comment. We write only to address Woods' claim of fundamental error in the court's instruction to the jury on his claim of self-defense.
Without objection, the trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as to the following: 2
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which Jason Woods is charged if the death of James Allbritton resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
....
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, or the imminent commission of burglary with a battery while armed against himself.
To prove the crime of burglary the following three elements must be present:
One, James Allbritton entered a structure owned by or in the possession of James Woods.
Two, at the time of entering the structure, James Allbritton had the intent to commit a robbery of that structure.
Three, James Allbritton was not licensed or invited to enter the structure.
(Emphasis added).
Jury instructions are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule and can be raised on appeal absent an objection only if fundamental error occurred. Taylor v. State, 62 So.3d 1101, 1119 (Fla.2011). Review of a claim of fundamental error is de novo. Elliot v. State, 49 So.3d 269, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Fundamental error is error that reaches “down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., CASE NO. 8:16-cv-2406-T-23AAS
...not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense, the state appellate court did not unreasonably apply Strickland. Woods v. State, 95 So. 3d 925, 927-28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (holding that recitation of the elements of an applicable felony for thePage 38 justifiable use of deadly force......
-
Mohammed v. State, Case No. 5D19-1341
...error only occurs where the instruction is so flawed as to deprive the defendant claiming the defense of a fair trial." Woods v. State , 95 So. 3d 925, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 379, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ). If the trial court issues no instruction, no fund......
-
Jackson v. State, No. 5D14–1400.
...we agree with the State. The word "proved" in this case was used in a similar manner, in the same context, in the case of Woods v. State, 95 So.3d 925, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), in which we rejected a similar fundamental error argument. In both cases, the words were used in the passive tense......
-
State v. Smith, No. SC17–576
...1374 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Sanford v. Rubin , 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970) )—is a question of law we review de novo. See Woods v. State , 95 So.3d 925, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ("Review of a claim of fundamental error is de novo."); cf. also Wong v. State , 212 So.3d 351, 355–56 (Fla. 2017)......
-
Ingram v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., CASE NO. 8:16-cv-2406-T-23AAS
...not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense, the state appellate court did not unreasonably apply Strickland. Woods v. State, 95 So. 3d 925, 927-28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (holding that recitation of the elements of an applicable felony for thePage 38 justifiable use of deadly force......
-
Mohammed v. State, Case No. 5D19-1341
...only occurs where the instruction is so flawed as to deprive the defendant claiming the defense of a fair trial." Woods v. State , 95 So. 3d 925, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 379, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ). If the trial court issues no instruction, no funda......
-
Jackson v. State, No. 5D14–1400.
...with the State. The word "proved" in this case was used in a similar manner, in the same context, in the case of Woods v. State, 95 So.3d 925, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), in which we rejected a similar fundamental error argument. In both cases, the words were used in the passive tens......
-
State v. Smith, No. SC17–576
...1374 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Sanford v. Rubin , 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970) )—is a question of law we review de novo. See Woods v. State , 95 So.3d 925, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ("Review of a claim of fundamental error is de novo."); cf. also Wong v. State , 212 So.3d 351, 355–56 (......