July 19-23

1st DCA
Ryan Donald-James Partch-1D09-1894
Mr. Partch was tried and convicted of Sexual Battery and Attempted Sex Bat with a person helpless to resist (in this case, intoxicated and passed out). Mr. Partch argued a double jeopardy violation. The court agrees. The court lays out a very informative 3 step process to determine whether or not charges violate double jeopardy. First, whether the crimes arose out of the same criminal transaction/episode. The second step is to determine if the charges were predicated on distinct offenses. If the charges were not predicated on distinct offenses, but occurred within the same episode, you must proceed to the third step, the Blockburger analysis. Here the court concludes these two counts occurred during the same transaction and were not distinct offenses. The court holds that to have been convicted and sentenced on both violated the Defendant’s double jeopardy rights. This is a great discussion of DJ issues, if you ever need to address them post-conviction.

2nd DCA
Michael T. Dery, Jr. v. State-2D08-3869
This is an appeal from a first degree murder conviction and life sentence. The State’s case here was largely, if not wholly, circumstantial. The victim was a known prostitute, there were no witnesses to the murder, the victim had left her motel to get more crack, and was never heard from again. The only evidence the State had was that Mr. Deny’s DNA was apparently found on the victim and he had access to the type of strangulation device used. During voir dire, the State asked the jurors if any had a specific interest or knowledge of DNA (as their case rested mostly on the DNA here), and only one juror responded. Juror #8 had actually taken a seventeen (that’s 17) week course on forensics, which was...wait for it….taught by the Detective who was the State’s witness in the case. The juror apparently didn’t think 17 weeks qualified as specific interest or knowledge of forensics. When this was revealed on the second day of trial, the defense moved for the juror to be removed and to be supplemented with an alternate (of which there was 2 to choose from and they were both still available). The judge refused and allowed Juror #8 to deliberate on the case. The court held that this was reversible error and applies a three step test (the courts love three step tests, not two, not four, three step tests). First you must determine if the information withheld by the juror is relevant and material (here it is). Second you must determine that the Juror concealed the information during questioning (here she did). Third the failure to disclose must not be attributable to a lack of diligence.

4th DCA
Arthur Pulcini v. State-4D08-2885
This case involves improper use of Williams rule evidence. There are many factors to consider when the State attempts to introduce Williams rule evidence. This case is a great factual example of the analysis that needs to be used. The court finds that the Williams rule evidence was admitted improperly and reverses and remands the case.

Kenneth Johnson v. State-4D08-3482
The court reversed to L/L convictions based on improper admission of prejudicial evidence. The State introduced the fact that the alleged victim had twice tried to commit suicide because of her relationship with the Defendant. The court found that this could cut both ways and allowed it in. However, the court held that if it “cut both ways” that it wasn’t very probative at all, while being very prejudicial. Therefore it should have been excluded and to admit it was harmful. Reversed and remanded.

T.M. v. State-4D10-2938 -Judge Sweet
On habeas, the Defendant contends that he is being held illegally in secure detention because he was classified as an “absconder.” The court holds that the running away must be “clandestine” and an attempt to avoid the legal process. Here there was no such evidence. Remanded.