Holmes v. State

320 So.3d 337

Derrick HOLMES, Appellant,

v.The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-875

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 2, 2021

Rier/Jordan, P.A., and Andrew F. Rier, Miami, and Jonathan E. Jordan, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Miami, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and HENDON, JJ.

HENDON, J.

Derrick Holmes appeals from his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder while carrying, using, displaying, or threatening to use a knife. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Holmes was charged by an amended indictment with first-degree premeditated murder and/or felony murder while carrying, using, displaying, or threatening to use a knife (Count I); armed burglary (Count II); and grand theft (Count III), which offenses occurred on or about May 10, 2005. Count three was nolle prossed prior to the commencement of trial and Count II was nolle prossed during the trial.

Prior to trial, Holmes filed a motion to suppress his entire confession ("Motion to Suppress"), raising arguments not pertinent to this appeal. Detective Stroze, who was the detective in charge of the homicide investigation, testified in a deposition and at the evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress. His testimonies reflect as follows. On May 12, 2005, the victim's neighbor called the police because she last saw the victim on May 10, 2005 at approximately 8:30 p.m. About half an hour later, she noticed that the victim's car was missing. When a police officer arrived at the victim's home, the front door was locked and there was no sign of forced entry. The police officer entered through a window and found the victim in a hallway with stab wounds. It was later determined that bloody fingerprints discovered at the victim's home matched Holmes’ fingerprints.

On May 18, 2005, while a search warrant for Holmes’ residence was being executed, Detective Stroze and Detective Parr went to the facility where Holmes had been in custody since May 12, 2005 for two robberies—one on May 11, 2005, and the other on May 12, 2005. Detective Stroze explained to Holmes that he wanted him to come to the police headquarters because he was investigating an unsolved crime. Holmes asked if it was for a homicide and, in response, Detective Stroze said that he was investigating an unsolved robbery of a woman. Holmes told Detective Stroze that he was not involved with that robbery and agreed to go to the police headquarters. After Detective Stroze informed Holmes of his Miranda ¹ rights, Holmes agreed to speak to him. The unrecorded questioning started around 2:45 p.m. in a robbery interview room of the police headquarters, and during the interrogation, several breaks were taken.

While questioning Holmes, Detective Stroze received a phone call from another detective informing him that a pair of bloody size thirteen sneakers² were found at Holmes’ residence during the execution of the search warrant. When Detective Stroze returned to the interview room, he asked Holmes what size sneakers he had on. Holmes looked at the size, placed his thumb over the number thirteen size, and told him his sneakers were size twelve, which was the Canadian or European size. After Detective Stroze corrected Holmes, he told Detective Stroze that the sneakers he was wearing was his only pair.

Detective Stroze showed Holmes a photo of the victim's vehicle, and Holmes stated that he had never seen the vehicle. Detective Stroze then showed Holmes a photo of the victim, and he admitted that he knew her but had not seen her in about three weeks to a month. Holmes then informed Detective Stroze that his (Holmes) fingerprints would be all over the victim's car and home because he had been in both on numerous occasions.

Detective Stroze told Holmes that he believed that Holmes was involved in the homicide, informing Holmes about the evidence against him, including the fingerprints recovered from the victim's home. Holmes denied any involvement, but got very nervous. Around 7:15 p.m., Detective Stroze once again told Holmes about the evidence against him, and Holmes then stated that he discovered the victim deceased in her house, but immediately ran outside without reporting it. Detective Stroze told Holmes to stop lying.

Holmes then admitted that he stabbed the victim, explaining what occurred. Detective Stroze then took Holmes down the hall to a homicide interview room. Detective Stroze then asked Holmes if he would give a recorded statement. Holmes stated that he would not because he already gave Detective Stroze enough. Detective Strove also asked Holmes if he would give a stenographic statement, and Holmes refused. Without Holmes’ knowledge, Detective Parr, who was in another room, activated the video recording device, and Detective Stroze began to review his notes with Holmes at approximately 9:00 p.m., which lasted about twenty minutes.

The transcript of the recording was introduced at the evidentiary hearing, which reflects the following statements by Holmes as to what occurred on May 10, 2005. Holmes stated that he knew the victim and went to her home to ask for money on the evening of May 10, 2005. The victim invited him into her home and offered him a beer. After a while, she asked him to help her move a dresser in the master bedroom. He then asked her for $20, and in response, she began to curse and told him that she was not going to give him any money. She slapped Holmes and told him that she was going to call the police, and Holmes got mad. He then went to the kitchen sink and retrieved a seven- to eight-inch knife and carried it along his side to conceal it from the victim. At this point, they were in the living room area, and he pushed her into the hallway so no one could see her if they were looking through the windows. He grabbed and held her until she fell to the ground. He then stabbed her, but the knife did not go all the way in because she grabbed the knife for about twenty seconds in an attempt to stop him from pulling it out and stabbing her again. She cut her hand. When she was holding the knife, she said, "Derrick, you [are] the nicest guy on the street," which made Holmes feel like, "Damn. I wish I could bring this lady back." He removed the knife and stabbed her again. Holmes believes that the knife went all the way through because he saw blood "squirt out" from her back. At that point, Holmes believed that the victim was dead because "she went straight out," her head went back, her "[e]yes got --- went like that," and she didn't say anything.

After he stabbed the victim the second time, he put gloves on his hands, which gloves he had in his pockets when he arrived at the victim's home. He turned off the porch light and began to go through her house looking for items to steal, and during his search, he removed his gloves because he was having difficulty grabbing items. He found a change jar in a drawer, but left it behind because he panicked.³ He placed the stolen items in the victim's Toyota Camry and left driving the victim's Camry. He bought drugs with the money he made from selling the stolen items. He discarded the knife after he left the victim's house, and eventually abandoned the Camry⁴ and walked home. He changed his clothes and placed his sneakers in his closet. After using the drugs, he panicked and left his house.

Following the recorded statement, Detectives Stroze and Parr drove Holmes to where he stated he discarded the knife, but the knife was not located. The detectives then transported Holmes back to the detention center around 1:12 a.m.

At the conclusion of the Motion to Suppress hearing, the trial court did not rule. Thereafter, Holmes filed a "Supplemental Memorandum to Exclude Videotaped Statement Following Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Suppress." Holmes argued that during the interrogation, he stated, "I've given you enough already," which statement constituted the invocation of his right to remain silent and the questioning should have ceased at that point. Thereafter, the trial court heard legal argument as to whether Holmes’ statement during the interrogation constitutes an unequivocal assertion of his right to remain silent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the Motion to Suppress and the Supplemental Motion to Suppress, explaining in relevant part as follows:

I think that while he did respond that he was not willing to give a recorded statement, he didn't indicate that he wanted to stop talking because it's clear from the transcript that the detective asked him to go over the notes and he agreed; he continued to engage him, so if he did not want to continue speaking, he – and he did – and he was trying to make a revocation of his previous waiver, it would have been clear and the question wouldn't be out there as to whether it was just in response to a question or if he was in fact making that statement.

At trial, the State called the associate medical examiner who testified as to the wounds on the victim's body. He testified that there were three stab wounds any of which could have caused death independently. One stab wound was to the left, top side of the chest, and it went through the victim's left lung, fractured the fourth rib, and pierced the wall of the chest on the back. Another wound was to the left, bottom side of the chest and it went through cartilage of the eighth rib. Further, the knife went into the abdominal cavity and injured the victim's kidney, liver, stomach, and pancreas. The other wound went through the victim's right lung. The victim also had defensive wounds on her left hand and fingers.

Detective Stroze also testified as to his interrogation of Holmes. He testified that towards the end of his unrecorded interrogation of Holmes, he asked Holmes for a "formal recorded statement," which meant that he wanted to take a "stenographically recorded statement." Holmes declined and stated, "[Y]ou know what, I...