Lucas v. State

347 So.3d 77

Alphonso LUCAS, Appellant,

v.The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-1941

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 6, 2021

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Miami, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ.

EMAS, J.

Defendant Alphonso Lucas was charged with first-degree murder of Terrilyn Gray, armed burglary with an assault, aggravated animal cruelty, and attempted first-degree murder and attempted felony murder of Curtina Gray. Following a jury trial, Lucas was found guilty, as charged, of first-degree murder of Terrilyn Gray, armed burglary with an assault, and aggravated animal cruelty. On the counts of attempted first-degree murder and attempted felony murder of Curtina Gray, the jury found Lucas guilty on each count of the lesser-included offense of aggravated battery.

Lucas raises five points on appeal, asserting the trial court erred in: 1) limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of two state witnesses; 2) overruling the defense objection to the State's questions on cross-examination of the defendant regarding his prior convictions; 3) permitting a police detective to testify that a substance found on a weapon impounded at the scene of the crime did not appear to be blood; 4) denying Lucas his fundamental right to a sentencing hearing; and 5) allowing dual convictions and imposing separate sentences for aggravated battery upon a single victim, in violation of double jeopardy.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings during trial and affirm the first three claims. See McDuffie v. State, 970 So. 2d 312, 324 (Fla. 2007) (holding a trial court's limitation on the examination of a witness is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Farr v. State, 230 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding a trial court's evidentiary rulings concerning the defendant's prior convictions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784, 791 (Fla. 1992) (noting that a party may attack the credibility of any witness by evidence of prior conviction, and that "this inquiry is generally restricted to the existence of prior convictions and the number of convictions .... However, when a defendant attempts to mislead or delude the jury about his prior convictions, the State is entitled to further question the defendant concerning the convictions in order to negate any false impression") (citations omitted); McDade v. State, 290 So. 3d 547, 547 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (same). See also § 90.701, Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing that a lay witness' testimony "about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when: (1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what he or she has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions and the witness's use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party; and (2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, experience, or training"); Johnson v. State, 215 So. 3d 644, 651 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (holding a trial court's determination to permit lay opinion testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Bolin v. State, 41 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 2010) ; Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225, 1231-32 (Fla. 1990) (finding no error in permitting police officer to testify "that a tablecloth found lying on the bed ‘appeared like someone had taken some type of object that had blood on it and wiped it on there and left it on the bed;" holding: "Lay witness opinion is admissible if it is within the ken of an intelligent person with a degree of experience .... We find the officers’ testimony within the permissible range of lay observation and ordinary police experience"). Additionally, we determine that any arguable error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

We further conclude the trial court did not deny Lucas his fundamental right to a sentencing hearing. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b), at sentencing "[t]he court shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence." The record establishes that, after the jury returned its verdict and it was published, the trial court initially stated it would set a future sentencing date. However, defense counsel advised the court "[you] can sentence him now." The court explained that it was considering setting a future sentencing date, so the victims could be heard at sentencing, because the hour was late (near midnight). Thereafter, defense counsel, also noting it was late, requested the sentencing be reset for "a few weeks," but offered no other reason for this request. The State asked the court to proceed to sentencing, advising that although the victims were aware that "they have the right to speak, to be heard on the record... they would rather waive that right and just finalize it right now." The court proceeded to sentencing. At no time did defendant or his counsel indicate they were unprepared to go forward, nor request additional time to obtain submissions or to present witnesses or mitigating evidence. Indeed, the only basis asserted by the defense for seeking to reset the sentencing was the late hour.¹

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to proceed to a sentencing hearing immediately following the return of the verdict, and further conclude that the trial court did not deprive Lucas of his due process right to a sentencing hearing or prevent him from offering submissions and evidence relevant to the sentence. Nunez v. State, 542 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).²

As to the defendant's final claim on appeal, the State properly and commendably concedes that Lucas was improperly convicted of, and sentenced for, two counts of aggravated battery for a single act committed against a single victim in the course of a single criminal episode. The State charged Lucas with attempted premeditated...