PROVIDED TOACKSON Cl ON

JUL 2 7 2012IF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FLORIDA

FOR MAILINGL..

NORMAN CAISON,Appellant,

Case.: 3D12-369LT Case No.: F-93-38756

STATE OF FLORIDA,Appellee.

/

THIS IS THE INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT OF THE DENIAL OF APETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM THE ORDERDENYING RELIEF ON JANUARY 12, 2012 BY THE HONORABLEJUDGE ZABEL FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUITCOURT

Norman.E. Caison,DC#471680/A-1143SJackson Correctional Institution5563 10th StreetMalone, Florida 32445-3144

1

TABLES OF CONTENTS

NAME PAGE

TABLES OF CONTENTS......................................................................................ii

TABLES OF CITATIONS....................................................................................iii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS...................................................... y

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT..................................................................... v

GROUND ONE.......................................................................................................viHABEAS CORPUS IS A PROPER VEHICLE WHEN THIS COURT SEESA MANIFEST INJUSTICE HAS OCCURRED ....... .........................................vi

GROUND TWO....................................................................................................... 1THE "AND/OR" CONJUNCTION UTILIZED IN THE INDICTMENT ANDJURY INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED FUNDAMENTAL ERRORRESULTING IN A MANIFEST INJUSTICE .................................................... 1

GROUND THREE ..................................................................................................3THE TRIAL COURT LACKED JURISDICTION AND THE DETENTIONSHOULD BE DECLARED A NULLITY, VOID OR ILLEGAL ...................... 3

GROUND FOUR..................................................................................................... 5APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN HEWAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HASRULED TO BE "NON-EXISTENT" WHICH HAS RESULTED IN AMANIFEST INJUSTICE........................................................................................ 5When the State Court obtained a conviction for a crime which they could not haveobtained because the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no such crime asAttempted Felony Murder......................................................................................... 5The law or case doctoring established at the Supreme Court in State v. Gary, 654So.2d 552 (Fla. 1995). States that there is no such crime ofAttempted FelonyMurder. ...................................................................................................................... 5The Appellant was convicted of Attempted First Degree Murder and at the time ofAppellant direct review the Florida Supreme Court effectively abolished the crimeofAttempted Felony Murder or Attempted Premeditated Murder and therefore the

11

crime was declared a non-existent crime. The decision must be applied to all casespending on direct review or not yet fmal. ................................................................. 5When the court finds that a manifest injustice has occurred, it is the responsibilityof that court to correct that injustice if it can. See: Adams v. State, 957 So.2d 1183(3'd DCA 2006).......................................................................................................... 5

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................. 6

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE..................................................................... 7

TABLES OF CITATIONS

NAME PAGE

Florida Cases

Adams v. State, 957 So.2d 1183...................................................................................................... W

Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)....................................................................................

Colewell v. State, 448 So.2d 540 (5* DCA 1984).........................................................................o .3

Colson v. State, 717 So.2d 554, 555 (4* DCA 1998).....................................................................

Comer v. State, 997 So.2d 440 (1®�040DCA 2008)..............................................................................

Davis v. State, 895 So.2d 1195 (2"d DCA 2005) ............................................................................

Dorsett v. McRav, 901 So.2d 225 (3'd DCA 2005).......................................................................... A

Fleischer v. Fleischer, 586 So.2d 1253 (4* DCA 1991)................................................................ 3

Gaskin v. State, 869 So.2d 646 (3'd DCA 2004)............................................................................. A

hoaters ofAm. TJC. v. Casolinal Wages. Inc, 655 So.2d 1231 (18* DCA 1995)............................ 3

James v. State, 706 So.2d 65 (5* DCA 1998) ................................................................................ 4

Jamison v. State, 447 So.2d 892, 895 (4* DCA -1983)................................................................... VI

111

Miller v. State, 918 So.2d 415 (2"4 DCA 20Ö6)..........................................................................

Murrav v. ReGier, 872 So.2d 217, 221 (Fla. 2002).......................................................................

Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla. 2002)..........................................:.....................................

Stang v. State, 24 So.3d 566 (3'd DCA 2009)................................................................................

State v. Anderson, 537 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Fla. 1989) ..........................:........................................

State v. Black, 385 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1980)....................................................................................

State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-645 (Fla. 1991)....................................................................... a

State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1995)........................................................................................

Sunrise Ass. Livington v. Ward, 719 So.2d 1218 (2°d DCA 1998)...... ..........................................

Tindle v. State, 832 So.2d 966 (5* DCA 2002).t.............................................;..:...........................

Federal Cases

Am. Sur. Po. OfNY..v. Coblentz, 381 F. 2d 185 (5th CÍT. 19Ó7) ...............................

Other Authorities

Hutchinson v. State, 29 So.3d 1228 (3'd DCA 2010)... ...........................................

Franqui v. State, 53 So.3d 82 (Fla. 2011)...................................................u..................................5

Gonzalez v. State, 45 So.3d 909 (Fla. 3'd DCA)...................>..........................................................1

Smith v. State, 11 So.3d 473 (Fla. 2009)....................................:....................................................1

State v. Akins, 69So.3d 261 , Fla. 2011))...........................................................

IV

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

The Appellant was arrested on November 15, 1993 for the charge of First

Degree Murder, 4· counts of Attempted First Degree Murder. Shooting into a

occupied vehicle and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The

Appellant was indicted on December 1, 1993 for 1 count of First Degree Murder,

four (4) Counts of Attempted First Degree Murder and Possession of a firearm and

was found guilty March 9, 1995 and sentenced to life in prison on April 20, 199.5.

A petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in Perry County, Florida and

transferred to Miami-Dade County and denied without an evidentiary hearing on

January 12, 2012.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

An indictment and jury instructions were lumped together using "and/or"

that resulted in a manifest injustice that resulted in a fundamental error and Due

Process of Law. This deprived the Appellant of a proper jury instruction.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction because the indictment, was not signed by

a statutorily eligible Assistant State Attorney and therefore no proper vehicle was

before the court.

It was error for the Defendant to be convicted of a non-existent crime.

The order denying relief was an incomplete order because it failed to address

the issue raised by Appellant of being convicted of a non-existent crime.

V

Additionally, the Appellant should be entitled to Habeas Corpus relief where

a manifest injustice has occurred.

GROUND ONE .

HABEAS CORPUS IS A PROPER VEHICLE WHEN THIS COURT SEESA MANIFEST INJUSTICE HAS OCCURRED

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is enshrined in our Constitution to be used as a

means to correct manifest injustice and it's availability for use when all other

remedies have been exhausted has served our society well for many centuries.

This court will of course remain alert to claims of manifest injustice, as will all

courts in Florida. Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). Where the court

finds that a manifest injustice has occurred, it is the responsibility of the court to

correct the injustice if it can. Adams v. State, 957 So.2d 1183 (3'd DCA 2006). If

it appears to a Court of Competent jurisdiction that a Appellant is being illegally

restrained of his liberty, it is the responsibility of the court to brush aside formal

technicalities and issue such appropriate orders as will do justice. Jamison v. State,

447 So.2d 892, 895 (4th DCA 1983).

[A]n Appellate Court has the power to reconsider and correct erroneous

ruling that has been the law of case when a prior ruling would result in a manifest

injustice, State v. Akins, 69 So.3d 261, (Fla. 2011).

V1

Although, the two-year time limitations for filing a motion pursuant to rule

3.850 has long passed, the Defendant may not be without a remedy, as our decision

is without prejudice to the Defendant's right to seek Habeas Corpus relief if he can

establish a manifest injustice. Hutchinson v. State, 29 So.3d 1228 (3'd DCA 2010).

The lower court failed to consider the Appellants right to seek relief

pursuant to habeas corpus and time barred him. See Smith v. State, 11 So.3d 473

(Fla. 2009), Gonzalez v. State, 45 So.3d 909 (Fla. 3'd DCA).

GROUND TWO

THE "AND/OR" CONJUNCTION UTILIZED IN THE INDICTMENT ANDJURY INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED FUNDAMENTAL ERROR

RESULTING IN A MANIFEST INJUSTICE

In the instant case an indictment was presented that charged the Appellant

with counts two through five of four counts of First-Degree Murder or attempted

pre-meditated murder.

The trial court inserted the conjunctive "and/or" in the reading of the jury

instructions. The "and/or" conjunctive were found to be fundamental! , error in

Comer v. State, 997 So.2d 440 (1* DCA 2008), Miller v. State, 918 So.2d 415 (2"d

DCA 2006) (relying on Tindle v. State, 832 So.2d 966 (5th DCA 2002) and James

v. State, 706 So.2d 64 (5th DCA 1998). ·

In the instant case, the jury instruction lumping of the alleged victims

deprived the Appellant of due process of law because the "and/or" conjunction

1

fails to satisfy the essential elements of the öffense if the one victim was threatened

while the other victim had a well founded fear.

These instructions were found to be "fundamental error". Miller v. State,

918 So.2d 415 (2"d DCA 2006) in James v. State, 706 So.2d 65 (5th DCA 1998) the

court creates serious due process problems.

The District Court of appeals have required to reverse a number of criminal

cases where the phase "and/or" in various contexts, has caused fündamental error.

Miller v..State, 918 So.2d 415 (2"d DCA 2006); Davis v. State, 895 So.2d 1195 (2"d

DCA 2005); Dorsett v. McRay, 901 So.2d 225 (3'd DCA 2005) and Gaskin v. State,

869 So.2d 646 (3'd DCA 2004).

The trial court failed to address the issue in denying relief of the "and/or"

conjunctive.

Fundamental error is error which "reaches down into the validity of the trial

itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the

assistance of the alleged error". State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-645 (Fla.

1991). "Thus, for the error to meet thus standard, it must follow that the error

prejudiced the defendant. Therefore, all fundamental error is harmful error. Reed

v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla. 2002) fündamental error is an error that would

result in a miscarriage of justice if not considered" Am. Sur.. Po. Of NY. v.

Coblentz, 381 F. 2d 185 (5th Cir. 1967) and is such a nature that it essentially

. 2

amounts to a denial of due process. Hooters ofAm. TJC. v. Casolinal Wages. Inc,

. 655 So.2d 1231 (l"�040DCA 1995) fundamental error, therefore, refers to error that

goes to the very heart of the judicial process, not to mistakes as to which arguably

correct law or rule applies, or as to the application of such a rule applies, or as to

the application of such a rule of law to facts in a case. Fleischer v. Fleischer, 586

So.2d 1253 (4* DCA 1991) thus, fundamental error occurs if the error extinguishes

a party's right to a fair trial.

The instant case meets burden that is required· to show fundamental error

that deprived the Appellant ofDue Process of Law.

GROUND THREE

THE TRIAL COURT LACKED JURISDICTION AND THE DETENTIONSHOULD BE DECLARED A NULLITY, VOID OR ILLEGAL

Each count of an information or indictment stands on its own, it is the only

vehicle by which the court obtains it's jurisdiction and is a limit upon that

jurisdiction. Colewell v. State, 448 So.2d 540 (5th DCA 1984). Jurisdiction to try

an accused does not exist under article I, § 15 of the Florida Constitution unless

there is a valid information, indictment filed by the state. Colson v. State, 717

So.2d 554, 555 (4* DCA 1998); State v. Black, 385 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1980).

The Assistant State Attorney Chet Zerlin failed to take the oath required by

statute that is required for Public Officers to take before signing an

indictment/information, failure to take thus oath deprives the court of jurisdiction

3

to try the accused jurisdiction is not invoked and does not exist unless the state

files and information or indictment. State v. Anderson, 537 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Fla.

1989).

The Appellant depended on this person taking the required oath as required

and as soon as he found out he did not, he filed the claim, a claim which the trial

court refused to answer in an incomplete order denying relief.

The scopé of the reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the court

that entered the [detention] order was without jurisdiction to do so or whether the

order is void or illegal. Murrav v. ReGier, 872 So.2d 217, 221 (Fla. 2002).As a

practical matter, "(i)f the challenged detention order (is) determined to be in

violation of the Petitioners Constitutional guarantee of due process there order

would clearly be illegal and not merely defective, irregular, or insufficient in form

of substance. Stang v. State, 24 So.3d 566 (3'd DCA 2009). If the court fails to

acquire jurisdiction over the Defendant in the proper manner it's judgment will be

regarded as void. Sunrise Ass. Livington v. Ward, 719 So.2d 1218 (2"d DCA

1998).

4

GROUND FOUR

APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WEREVIOLATED WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED OF A

. CRIME WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HASRULED TO BE "NON-EXISTENT" WHICH HASRESULTED IN A MANIFEST INJUSTICE

When the State Court obtained a conviction for a crime which they could not

have obtained because the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no such crime as

Attempted Felony Murder.

The law or case doctoring established at the Supreme Court in State v. Gary,

654 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1995). States that there is no such crime of Attempted Felony

Murder. Franqui v. State, 53 So.3d 82 (Fla. 2011).

The Appellant was convicted of Attempted inp Degree Murder and at the

time of Appellant direct review the Florida Supreme Court effectively abolished

the crime of Attempted Felony Murder or Attempted Premeditated Murder and

therefore the crime was declared a non-existent crime. The decision must be

applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final.

When the court finds that a manifest injustice has occurred, it is the

responsibility of that court to correct that injustice if it can. See: Adams v. State,

957 So.2d 1183 (3'd DCA 2006).

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Appellant pray that this court address the issues of

manifest injustice and allow habeas corpus relief.

Dated 7'¯'

No Caison DC# 471680Jackson Correctional Institution5563 10th StreetMalone, Florida 32445

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was hand-

delivered by me to the Department of Corrections Mail Room personnel at Jackson

C.I. for service by U.S. Mail delivery to the following: Attorney General, Ms.

Pamela Jo. Bondi, The Capitol, suite PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 on this

N'l day of WL , 2012,

No n Caison DC# 471680

6

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the font used in this brief is in compliance with

Fla. App. Rule. 9.210 (A) (2) and is times New Roman 14 point font.

Norman Caison DC# 471680

7

MOMA S 0. FiNLÝHE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

2012 NOV 20 PM 2: 23. . .ST§E OF F 1 DA, Case No. F93-38756 """~~'

CLEin Rim. Ela ntiff SectionNo 08 F 1 L E Dvs. Judge Sarah Zabel

BY-Norman-Caison, --- JAN 1 2 2012Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'SPETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUSFILED ON OR A.BOUT DECEMBER 2, 2011

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard upon the defendant's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, filed on or about December 2, 2011. In his petition, the defendant makes the following claims:

1. The trial court judge gave erroneous jury instructions

2. The indictment in this case was legally insufficient

Although the defendant's pleading is styled as a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," it is actually a

collateral attack on his judgment and sentence. Consequently, it should be treated as a motion for post

conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and subject to that Rule's provisions.

See Crais v. State., --- So.3d ---, 2010 WL 1687639 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. April 28, 2010). For the reasons

set forth below, this Court will deny the defendant's petition without an evidentiary hearing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The defendant was arrested on November 15, 1993 for the charges of First Degree Murder, 2

counts of Attempted First Degree Murder, Shooting into an Occupied Vehicle, and Use of a Firearm in

the Commission of a Felony pursuant to an arrest warrant that had been issued on November 13, 1993.

2. The defendant was indicted for the charges of First Degree Murder, four (4) counts of

Attempted First Degree Murder, and Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony on

December 1, 1993.

3. The defendant was found guilty of First Degree Murder, four (4) counts of Attempted Second

Degree Murder, and Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony after ajury trial on March

9, 1995 and sentenced to life in prison.

4. The defendant's judgment and sentence were affinned in Caison v. State, 695 So.2d 872 (Fla.

3d D.C.A. 1997).

Page 1 of 3

5. Un June 17. 1999, the defendant filed a motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

6. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on the defendant's motion for post conviction relief, and

after the hearing, the Court denied the motion on February 6. 2001.

7. · The defendant appealed the Court's order denying the motion for post conviction relief, but this

Courf s ruling was affirmed in Caison v. State, 819 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2002).

8. The defendant more recently filed another motion for post conviction relief in April 2009,

which was denied by this Court in June 2009; the Court's ruling was affirmed in appellate case

number 3D09-1972 (Slip opinion, 2009 WL 2450344).

9. The defendant has now filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Court would initially note that Claims 1 and 3 of the defendant's petition for writ of habeas

corpus are untimely and therefore will be denied. As noted supra, the defendant's judgrnent and

conviction were affirmed in 1997. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) provides defendants

two (2) years to file a motion for post conviction relief from the time their judgment and sentence

become Gnal. The defendant may be seeking to avoid the two (2) year time limit imposed by Rule

3.850(b) by styling his pleading as a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,"but under Craie v. State, -

So.3d -. 2010 W L 1687639 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. April 28, 2010) and Valdez-Garcia v. State. 965 So.2d

318 (Fla.. 2d IM'.A. 2007). the defendant cannot circumvent the requirements of Rule 3.850 in this

way In this case. the defendant has filed the instant motion approximately fourteen years after the

Third District Court of Appeal has affirmed his judgment and sentence. His clairns are untimely and

should therefore be denied.

Moreover. the Court will deny the defendant's petition because as noted in Rule 3.850(c), the

Rule "does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have or should have been raised at trial

and. if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence." in the presently-filed

petition. the defendant alleges that the Court provided erroneous jury instructions and that the

indictment was legally insufficient, These are clairns which could have, or should have, been raised by

u direct appeal. Therefore, they are not cognizable in a motion for post conviction relief under Rule

3.850. Finally. the defendant's petition does not comply with the technical requirements of Rule

3.850. so it will be denied for that reason, as well.

Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, this Court will DENY the defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

filed on or about December 2, 2011.

The defendant shall have thirty (30) days to appeal the Order of this Comt.

The clerk of courts shall provide a copy of this Order to the defendant forthwith.

DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, this the day of

12.

Ju e elCUIT DGE

c: The Office of the State Attorney s o 2Norman Caison, defendant pro-se

I CERTIFY that a copy ofthis order has been famished to

theMOVANT, .NORMAN CAISON by mail this 1.7TR . dayof JANUARY , 20 CO y

TA E FLORIDA, COUNTY O DADE

HARVEY RUV!N, C!erk of Circuit andÃuoty rtì

Oeputy CJer

Page 3 of 3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA v. Case No. F93-38756Norman Caison, Defendant Judge Zabel

STATE'S RESPONSE TODEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FILED ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 2, 2011

COMES NOW KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE,· State Attorney of the Eleventh

Judicial Circuit of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, and files this

Response to the defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on or about December 2,

2010. This his petition, the defendant makes the following claims:

1. The trial court judge gave erroneous jury instructions

2. The indictment in this case was legally insufficient.

It should be noted that while the defendant's pleading is styled as a "Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus," it is actually a collateral attack on his judgment and sentence. Consequently, it

should be treated as a motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.850 and subject to that Rule's provisions. See Craig v. State, - So.3d -, 2010 WL 1687639

(Fla. 3d D.C.A. April 28, 2010). For the reasons set forth below, this Court should DENY the

defendant's petition without an evidentiary hearing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The defendant was arrested on November 15, 1993 for the charges of First Degree Murder,

2 counts of Attempted First Degree Murder, Shooting into an Occupied Vehicle, and Use of a

Firearm in the Commission of a Felony pursuant to an arrest warrant that had been issued on

November 13, 1993.

2. The defendant was indicted for the charges of First Degree Murder, four (4) counts of

Attempted First Degree Murder, and Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony on

December 1, 1993.

Page 1 of 3

3. The defendant was found guilty of First Degree Murder, four (4) counts of Attempted

Second Degree Murder, and Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony after a jury trial

on March 9, 1995 and sentenced to life in prison.

4. The defendant's judgment and sentence were affirmed in Caison v. State, 695 So.2d 872

(Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1997).

5. On June 17, 1999, the defendant filed a motion for post conviction reliefpursuant to Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

6. .An evidentiary hearing was conducted on the defendant's motion for post conviction relief,

and after the hearing, the Court denied the motion on February 6, 2001.

7. The defendant appealed the Court's order denying the motion for post conviction relief, but

this Court's ruling was affirmed in Caison v. State, 819 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2002).

8. The defendant more recently filed another motion for post conviction relief in April 2009,

which was denied by this Court in June 2009; the Court's ruling was affinned in appellate case

number 3D09-1972 (Slip opinion, 2009 WL 2450344). The defendant has filed numerous other

motions seeking post conviction relief, all ofwhich have been denied.

9. The defendant has now filed the instant Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

The State would initially note that Claims 1 and 3 of the defendant's petition for writ of

habeas corpus are untimely and therefore should be denied. As noted supra, the defendant's

judgment and conviction were affmned in 1997. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)

provides defendants two (2) years to file a motion for post conviction relief from the time their

judgment and sentence become final. The defendant may be seeking to avoid the two (2) year time

limit imposed by Rule 3.850(b) by styling his pleading as a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,"

but under Craig v. State, --- So.3d ---, 2010 WL 1687639 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. April 28, 2010) and

Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So.2d 318 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2007), the defendant cannot circumvent

the requirements of Rule 3.850 in this way. In this case, the defendant has filed the instant motion

approximately fourteen years after the Third District Court ofAppeal has affirmed his judgment and

sentence. His claims are untimely and should therefore be denied.

Page20f3

Moreover, the Court should deny the defendant's petition because as noted in Rule 3.850(c),

the Rule "does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have or should have been raised at

trial and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence." In the presently-

filed petition, the defendant alleges that the Court provided erroneous jury instructions and that the

indictment was legally insufficient. These are claims which could have, or should have, been raised

by a direct appeal. Therefore, they are not cognizable in a motion for post conviction relief under

Rule 3.850. Finally, the defendant's petition does not comply with the technical requirements of

Rule 3.850, so it should be denied for that reason, as well.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the State would respectfully request that this Court DENY the defendant's

Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus, filed on or about December 2, 2010.

Respectfullysubmitted,

KATHE FE EZRUNDLESTATE O

By:auraMtfams

Assistant S e AttomeyFlorida Bar # 0017671350 Northwest 12th AvenueMiami, Florida 33136-2111(305) 547-0100

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of the above was mailed to Norman

Caison, defendant pro se, DC number 471680, Taylor Correcti 1 Institution, at 8501 Hampton

Spring Road, on this Ê., day of ( ,

L ura AßánAssistant State Attorney

Page 3 of 3

Corji )

HE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELE VEW T// JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR m764- CBC E COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION o

STATE OF FLORIDA,Plaintiff/Appellee, è.

Case No.: ev.

lìÍoto'nAA E> CA$sc4¢

Defendant/Appellant.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE IS GIVEN that the Defendant, McBr»M E- CA$soA , pro-se,

appeals to the District Court of Appeal for the Thimo District, the final

judgment of this Court rendered 71%*y c2, m2. .

The nature of the order appealed is a final judgment DEHfpeCo pëFEWuW

McT$oA (wt t»vt4Te>f blegew Corças FzLa oA AgnL 57 ao(J

Dated this 1 T +6 day of Tos ao m .

Respectfully submitted,

DC# y 7/k gr.

(Cor y)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I placed this document in the hands of prisonofficials within the confines of Taylor Correctional Institution Annex for mailingto CLeyLkaF1(4E CaáT ÍÅ+h 7w,CW L3£I à+ 12+'S¼&L%%KM 35MK

s%«ce MrpoW6 porw w--a<nm FIA 21& mu

on this 3 i * day of Tsøy aota .

DC# LF7 f /e 2rDTay4er Correctional Institution Annex8629-HampterrSprings44eadBerryr-Florida 3234fr-8-747-=>

CáE M l'A3-3�254¯I

INSTITUTION 5LTaA es 4NAs,g CELL/DORM & BUNK [f- 12ol- L

NAME E. CA5soc4

uo5cut cT2 T-o 82ISSaE o

NUMBER @7¼ TD DATE / 3

pévzéww,

o F UA Bi% C oapes ß y NoT ATTArkr+Ie A ponT5o» of TyE aEcoac s to wfat&

DE FEH oMTs _CLArms, C,avrtA LéE v STATE y 5 s,3d % Gw>zTH y, STkfB i I G 3d 473

Issa e Two '.

W @ ETltac TitV7-auì1_ cou,a7 eyeyteo ogpg,g,a7, mo77 T p

jŽ)l[ G }\Í %L)Slf,C L7 c

Issue TlktEE

THu TH1? T<cs+L Caud �254vvaeoe eenyva oE-p&ends meTzoy e r p

heæns Cosen s WTMouT .4 VA5 L o I l'u«mATzoKT-v än so, Auo , wvHo Th c

arn&% ALCo3 Dou BLE 3é^¤òA<wy céTs»o TppE1.of GlÅA&bEX fo×.TRG

ssa E F»na!

LJ1hTUE4L TifE TauL Caua7 GW En E y D EHV5AG DEFE¼¢A6s ¥noTrop foa a T o

4aOHs Coaque fu Coaars Two,¯(ye fuE w yew tyEysyt Exzsroo oaan

DtT'ENGANTi DT-fl ELT GEVzEO, ST4TE V. (baktf (05¥ s,§d 95A f(b 1°19

ssu E FzuE

[4ETi¼THE 7aL±L Con a7 L L�254\OÊV OÖÍ YÜÛ Ù S�570Ú%9M(3 od a

bk¼e�040sCoaps ALlooze s Gyulmevas 3mty T-NrT-aa cTvo»s To 5X¥27

2ssue sm

t.J H E7|bt 71+E TarA L CouT E¼aso ßy osa y5a s Ocpénonøtri me,rses Fayu 1x act af

C,oapas L277|kuT A·corteseyG THE PuøeAvieHTAL ¿Hlacks T||4T mAyBE RAueo

AAVT5mE , Geo fum V, sT»re no s. 4% µzcL5 E o STAT E áro 5.ad 47%

Ssué Swem

H e ïinvc Tejt TvtuL CowaT e ruaua G y t)ën yza b iiù Psuaüm í> mvhos j w 1 o p Up

D/Lptes LA AlpEVL Sy JEET øØ77Eyt ~fgyt$s;g5CTged g¼ 27 C Ajg

AuT#ouTV T-o DECzo E TN7S CAS E ,

C/hE7 o -93, '3 87 s

1ssué Exec,ur<

tòW7Ñ'Ek TW Taut Cou,a7 Ek4Elo 8 v datvIsG OsFeuw4 me7ses Fovt w&To F

I¯ÌA @ EAT Confus FTzec o A A em L 5, aoH . 7iuFomeo To TWu 7A µzt. 3 Polh

-l5s'ae Nure i

- L<3 l-l GTH1Lvt T)�040éTa:rnL ConaT EYLAEC ß Y D&f v t,a G D EFoM cANT1 moT3ou II×L W4'i of

ff4Géfr Cançus (45THouT AN EV:7_o EN Tz /ucy N £AiL'[ACm ___

D ¼GLT50P To T WE C Lee-k o f 'TWS Cou e%

_ BEFo4cAMT, lioam4A & CAzsoA fao-.c é vneva 7}T3£ Nosa StB WT

�040@swAAT To La t, E 9. zoo('cd CQ , Ftoy:geg (La La of C4) �040&oCE¥ad , c44c ÅkELE

DIA ECT 7Fff Cou,n.T C L L%k.To 'Tg.Attng:7 To T&E TNTs DUTexc7 Cou nT °

Afpæ lA A LL R Econo r zs Tifé ,4Go6E CA pTzat £c C44té L3èEED BElow ,

L50, Á Cop y fn çgfeng( E vcant .

4 L L moTz oA S, f �254~íLT%,t1(L E sqva é-t , À�254pLzgs:, Das Eyt1 f3 LBo f«om .

DEC Eha ß E¼ '2, 20Lo 'iso 2TdøuAtw I % 101 2 , ort THu A4pM L

8 37, i s s ct0) , 8 37 0:uL cet. [O £ø) ) Ch); (OCQ 0) , A L L m&»tá:, /VoTscii oFPqu n1Et LT

DockGT &REb7] favo, iA- a »o, To I - ! i

Taylor Correctional Institution Law Library Name: Number Bunk

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR TAYLOR COUNTY, FLORIDA

NORMAN E. CAISON, ) CASE NO.: 2011-207-CA)

Petitioner, )))

)STATE OF FLORIDA, . . )

)Respondent. )

))

ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

. THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon the Petitioner's "Petition for Writ o Habeas

Corpus," filed with the. Taylor County Clerk of the Court on April 12, 2011. Based on the petition, this

Court finds and concludes as follows:

The Petitioner's "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" was improperly filed in the Third Judicial

Circuit. Generally a petition for writ of habeas corpus should be filed in the county in which the

petitioner is housed; however, when a petitioner attacks the validity of his conviction by raising issues

relating to his arrest, trial, or to the propriety of a plea, jurisdiction in habeas proceedings lie with the trial

court that imposed the sentence and rendered the judgment of conviction. Sheriff v2 Moore, 781 So. 2d

1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Additionally, the First District Court of Appeal in Burgess made clear that

after the adoption of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the proper venue for post-conviction and

post-appeal motions attacking the Petitioner's judgment and sentence is the court which imposed the

judgment and sentence. Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing State v. Bloom,

523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001) (holding that the proper venue for collaterally attacking a judgment

and sentence, post-judgment and post-appeal, is the same court which imposed the judgment or

sentence)). The Second District Court of Appeal also addressed this issue in Barnes v. State, 909 So. 2d

534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that when the Petitioner attacks the validity of the proceedings that led

to his incarceration, venue lies with the original trial court). See also Stokes v. State, 3 So. 3d 425 (Fla.

. 3d DCA 2009), and Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

As the Petitioner's allegation relates to the indictment upon which he was charged and jury

instructions given at his trial, the Petitioner is attacking the validity of the underlying proceedings. The

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, where the Petitioner's trial and sentencing were held, has jurisdiction over

Petitioner's petition. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to rule upon the instant motion.

Norman Caison v. Walter McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of CorrectionsOrder Transferring Petition for Habeas CorpusCase No. 20l l-207-CAJames Roy Bean, Circuit Judge (Taylor)

Therefore, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Petitioner's "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," is hereby transferred to the Eleventh Judicial

Circuit Court in and for Dade County. The Clerk of Court for Taylor County is directed to send a

certified copy of the petition to the Clerk of Court for Dade County.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Taylor County, Florida, on this day of April

2011.

JAME Y B' , CIRCUIT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIfY that a true copy of the foregoing Order was furnished by U.S. Mail/handdelivery, on this F day ofApièl 2011, to the following:

Norman Caison DC#.471680 Florida Parole CommissionTaylor Correctional Institution Attn.: Post-Conviction Release8515 Hampton Springs Road 2601 Blair Stone RoadPerry, Florida 32348 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Office of State Attorney Office of the State Attorney, Main OfficeThird Judicial Circuit Eleventh Judicial Circuit108 North Jefferson Street E.R. Graham BuildingSuite 301 1350 N.W. 12 AvenuePerry, Florida 32347 Miami, Florida 33136-2111

Person Sending Copies

2

-TN'tHÉ i H2P ¼onuLcucarCp ToF PLo o,4

2NO 20 HlED Ri OFFICENoRmAN E·CAlsory W7lW° C 2

672Tso NeYC APR 1 2 2011

vs - C

S TAT e o f 14o«uk, L7,Mo F 3 87£ fe

R E çpod oeÔ

ET5'Trow Fwt Wn1T of #ABE*s Cos.eus

Com E Nom>'TH�254PETITzooséq Mo«mAN E· CAssor$ 1N feo@M9G t£odA,

Pwas w44T To F,#w A RubEs oF CR'kfoft F40ceou E L ßEo(h{,44o REspECT

Fut uf péT1T zoM TH$s Üsdo«k6C & Cv�523ãTs EM Teyc A W CT o f l¼sem C oc S oz

927eo T-o Tµç (LE sposoenT, STATE of funA , Ms ED on A MAdî fæT %ѼT1

L oÊ 04 E FAo Czsr 3d w ff1DN Tlö odLy

u ATG OR 1% EFFétTIVE. To Tex7' Tfff*LE C7A L T Ty oF Wu DE TEw Tzo^ of A Co

TE¼T AppLZC ATIoM o F MSE¼9 E%7 DE CL&LoA 5 CE' S«>77)[ V c£7AI6, CAsE No

Dog -no oFT^floN F1kEb TootE Aft, dooßf% 5 "44Á, Gon24LE Vs.S74TE c

No'. 3 Oto 'lo35 , LT, CAI£ Mo 98 do¼ f.F/A %.d c4A., Ano ßuhE of,oToGo)[ s)

g gsu ry 21vakzw G1 Bus.zs or C7xou

-~l455 CoueT Is Vé-sTEb WITH lturroIc72on/ To REvtEw THW LEGÁLIT

of fET772oweyù UuCGmEHToF Co/d VICTJod ÅdC SEH TENCE f4BMA*T To (L4, ß·

C.gy p. L B so (b) 1nt A w KTToF R&ß&M Co+Pa s w H 3C H 4«E E'm Bo<p3 ED 3+[

W a on e p ao Ceur , Med E*I Co A P4 £ ; ETQ u R L Tß�523T/h'êHT, 4'® 4 DCEfS To CouaT

n n na _ c1n l'r A a i �042 . run

�570Soû£ToM£ uMDETL (LT1CLE I, S.ECTsom 9, l3, I go ¿;tl of THE floazo A

CoMST3TuTzoM j AND CodFERKED Sy ,o30( ( of THE FLv440A ¼LES

oF 49fELLéTE faocEo

A STATE foçT CodV1cT1od fE977zou Foæ W R$7 oF Åk&&s Cof ?a s 1s

THE fKofEL REmE0y F,« c)yttEgg39G gg gqqqtyg

Apet:CAT2ow of 5TATE LAW.SEE: Ous LEy v, SECRET ay fo DEP'Y, of Cess

&¶ Fee . Ágex.ggy (t|c Cze. acos ) C M AND LEil V, Cgo o, M 719

(FLA.avoE) smxTH v.slaTE çAss no'..s 0c9- no OP7d.3od f3LED JMg ay,

QuoN (pobl2A LE 2, \(ç.STATB, Cks E No 3 blo- lo35, LT,GASE NoM8- foSMFLA 37tf })x,¼,),

TA TE th EuT of THE Chc E kap FACTs

ott DECErmP£tl I, l443, CAsE No'. F-9P wisp , A GMa ksy INDxTMEnT

WAS fßE S ENTEV Ad o FILED TN Tl+E C W CMIT CouT of THE E'L EVéNT H T403ML

C,1¢CasT 1M Awa Fus 0AoE Cou»Tyj fLosM C-¼ Aeszsco OE Fev04uT CAzsou

µzTy og E CoaáT o F FusT- DE (pnEE M accer CousT od no C.oo,97s Two

Typoab H F3VE, fcul CouaT5 of ÀTT�254mqTgf2ST O u

ED PgE meozTATED mRDEK Âào CoMT M QoSS ESSzod 0

Commsssxos of A FeLowy . f,s> 77%oy Aao 78L°4

D EFEW DMT ENTEYLED A P LEA D Ê MoÍ OUILIf 'Io T A G o P EO

AC1ATAST H$m,

OcFos oA»T f6cCEE DED To TauL Q TuPY ¤Ñ MA

WAS FoaAD Gu RTy of od E CouMT of F5asT -·D ECmEE mu¢DE (bu Coa,iTs o f

41TE¼�040TEPSECo^o~ DEC,<tE'E mugoEyL,9a ATTcmfTEv (R EmE957ATED cnugoEqu

od r»dech 9, 1995, CAss No! F-%- 38 7sh,

ont Apazc 2o, ¡qqK DEFEHDMTWAs £�254NTENC60ToL&fE IMfRISob

I'7t ENT WITH Å TwE%Tf -F5yE yEM MWmuM tmkNDATony, Ago on CoaúTs Two

THRouGW FIUE, DEFeW DMT w4s CedTExceo To TH5A7y y Ewu E*ch CenT wJ7N

T4tLEE y Ewa mInzmuA WAwMTo*7 Faovzszow To Rau CodCuREENT /wgNp

t'mm /'n440AToay T4aEe yEWLI To ßud CoWSECWTTVE Ttd CoùwT Two Ta CooßT

Moe To ses Teac@ó orfewosT -rguL CoueT OCOETLEO A FA ESENTEH-

CI46 INt/gTsc54T$o,d REfo4T, wlf$CH WAS FA& fkEo ßy DEp44TmEA T o l' Cdf -

E CTånL

IM A00371o4, THé TamL CeæT NE f4sEo A SE%TEuC7A

Sscoee sH£FT ßutE 3,9gs{j) wxTH T4é Avo37sowAL OFFguscs s coseo A ToTAL

S EN Teuc2G fouT1 of ¼\, R E C+m EN©ED SeuTE¼C E k AdGE

f EYLM377ED EESTE CE KhdGE OF Ú~ HC yEMS, IkowEVE« TblEM REFusE To Aff

Lf Å GoLDE LPLLE SEH7EHCE To H3/4,

DEFEAD4d T Fzt.eo k D3R ECT AffEAL A-FTPfL S EN TEN Czu6 To ryg Typuo

DzsTutT Coa«i of AççEytL, a H2c,y wgs pe<t Ca ma m A FFza m eo, .

DEFE¾oAAT IkL fR EV30us Ly PLLEo A FEoeu L Hkßens Coero w µzc y

uns T2m E 8A eaEu, A pfyLéo To rµg Eggygm7pf CzK CazT CoacLT o F 4pFEA L,

Ado wnT oF Ccá.7xos z- To THE uM7TED STATEs &9g wTW-

oaT Aay R E LTEF, As T;r+>E GAnaEo-

NATue E oF 7HE VE L1cf Gou G H T

TlfE Af 4 Tuae of THE R E LIEF Sou er H T TA TNTC FE TIT50M IS THE

Ir4 NEVLEN T Á u TÑo a%7f o f TM$£ Cou cT To us C1o E fo¢md L TE c A NICAL-

X T3Es To R E Con szoEK A-S Å mAllER C i O ELT THzC ER R odE-

ouS Ru L34 G, T4 Sf 77E o f THE fA °^ E lAk!

of TUc CASE, wbEYLE ßELIAACE od f4 C ° /Î

(3J

M AMIFEsT IN7asTscE AND A DENTAL of DuE fnocess ·TlkT CAà 8E AscEc7

AzMen Feom THE Facé of TH-E BE Coao oE A FoNokmENT4L EMos TlkT /H A�040

BE R Asseo $7 Asl y T$m E ' Z hl C Luosy b fo4 TWE FzesT Tw E IN A pos7

ConlVzcTÆog (HoTrow , SEE r, ßE D Fo«v V s. CYATE, 9717 So-ad 93 5 L fth H

WILLIE Vr. ßTA TE /,gg go, ad g7er, /-lf.1 ( FLA l h 0 c A

i 9%).

Gaonaos rua Retzzf

erygg. 4pf Lz e A720sl of feoccoaenL BA« B y LAW OF 7HE C,As E

ÅhlD CoLL ATe<ùtL ESTop�040E'LDoCTETA Es ÜÆt RE Dw.Teo IN A M AM1FesT TN·-

JusT:r-CE ARD A DEMAL of DU E f�254°CEXCTINT CArt SE DETE**TAEO ff°

(;qcE of 7HE R E Coao of Faü ckmen7A L ERR od E ous U ÑOØECT o '[uff

ZMs7gucTzoa Lumpuë 4 LL E&£o V3C75ms ToGE73�254�254of ATTEtPT EP

pug7 oEcaEs muno Et|An° ATTD"fT© PK E M EoT TAT®�042UVkoT vacoy

7µE us E of Tin"Ano |oc 'Codua CTzoA zF od E A LLECsEO V3CTLrn WAS

Tyge+TEN EO VÑzbE THE o7HEt VzcTzm NAc 4 WELL"Fouà0 FE44LOFVzoLEMt E

Is 5 m msMéW T,

A R G A(Yi EWT

_I5S4 E ; ot@ ;

1N 7HE CAs E AT ß#a, pETçrzone<t, blosmd4 E· CAzsou, AsøTs

TbikT ApfL7xAT$od of (¼ocEcaeAL BA4 ßf L4w of7Ho Ckss Aao CoLLATe«A L

ESToppEl DoC7kyts Ü4s RESuL-TED IN A Y"AATFE373M1usTSCE4AD A DE

,$A L oF DuE paoceu TM&T CAu 6 E D E Tcamy eo pom 7ye facs o p 7ys ggcoeo

of f0N94mEWTAL EMoMcoa3 UdoßTeLT&To Tug7 MTauc75ow Lu

A LLE GED V5CX7«>2 ToGETHETL 2d CouùTs 'Two T)¼rd) FwE np ß77&qq

F�041ASTDECdëE muczyL,oe AT7oyTw fsEmeoT 7&w munost zN �254*cH syt-

G1LE CouN7 74&oaBl) T HE usE of THE AMD|os '' Cod Tuscqg,g fATLg To

A7zs FSE5 7HE E5G EN TWL ECEMDATs o1~ 7W E D FFBd SE J'F DrJ G A LL EGgo vzc-

TLM WAS TEIRenTEN Eo w H TLE TWE oTHEYL VzcTrsm 144o A wELlefou-ncEO FEyy

o f vzo LeuCE 15 % mm1+1E%T. SEE' ÚACod vs. STA'[E , 997 So- 2à 1139 ( FL4

d A cA - ko8)', Ûomen Vs. STA7E , %'7 So.2 d ({yo (ftA. / 4 o, t A. hos)

W C Lsod vs. £TATE , 975 So.2d 3(ob ( Flk y 4-c,cA ao�523)

TM ESE %¢s~TsacTzo C LoEyLE Foawo To ßE fadDAmEMTAL &@C

TH MTLL£(L Vs. STATE ,919 5o>2% LJ LS ( FIA 2,u 0 C A> .2cob)( R E LyzuG os

TW oLe Vs. sTA7e , g.32 so, 2d %tg ( FM 5+0.c. 4 boa), Awe 74mEs vs.

TATE ,~lob So,2d leif( FLA-5 ® D-C·Æ. I99Ò-

TN 8 A Cou ys. S7ATE , suçMy 7]tg Tl]Sac D%S'Tasc7 Cou67 o F

Pf E4L D E C L S%ed QualTFxE3 ÁS ÀÜ È%È Efl1044 L C3K Cum STNC E Ä%È

As mhoE A Co4TeAry DEC5szew of LAw TH&T 55 Áff LíCAELE To7&E LEGM-

of 71�040EpE757zcw EVL'S '3aoG m EMT 05 CodV TC T3od ANo RECop sweaA7zou

Aff8vf44ME, wkE RE LTANCE of STdIc7Ådo RIf4D 404MNCE To TMrs C S

PREVzous RuLyss 1¼1 CaEnTEo 4 m AdzfE17 M1os7as hão A DEN¼L oF0

Goces2 7l¼T CM @E ASCGKTwiw f%m TÅE FAcg of T QE GE Co&o A [0HCAmE TAL

Ewoe H4s occaeaea Aao VodLo RésaLT7x A M�576sCAa4L1AGEof1usTæ

2 E AloT Cow ráp avts , SEE C ,7Ñog,To% VL S TATE, % 3 È5c. ad go y [ FzA 3ed

o C.A. &coW, mA*7µs2 Vs.STATE, #33 So,aÀ ll55 ( FLA ¤À D'LA·2*Ñ

Wldags, IN ß4cod Vs. STATE, £upd , TffE TOTao D TSTarc7 CoußT

ED T^f FA«T Ano RE V£�254SEDOA CC feo L Fyto- 4 7n:mL CoutT oav&Y

DEdy2dG HLs pCTz71od Fov. BE L7ÈF FLLEP fukSuMT Ío FLb R.CSW ?> 3-859 .

Tß¼L CoueT FA LLE6 Tö 4e rts, M Tfs oaoet DERfM6 RELm

'7f¼ TStaE RATsEo ßf ßACou IN #15 4triEMDED 3rSLD QE7TT1cd (LEb4R

TmL couwseL's F4TLuas Ts oßJELT To Tits''Ano /o«. " CL44cE Pf TlfE I

STRucTToa s 04 Cow s($e4 e y TV47 weaE Reno To T#ti Juay . k/ E fCE m44o TRIs

£ot E Tssu e To THe Tamt Cou¢T U1*Tl'/ Ins'Taa c7mis s 7c: gogger g 7¡4g mggm

oF BACo«¼ CLA7m 3M LTCoHT of G>AR2od Vs.STA7E, no so.2 to38 ( RA 204),

Acto ,.3F T[¾ Tssa E HAs No m Ec7, To 4774c0 R tCaao s 7N47 C·ou clus1Vsy

MFCET THE DEF£uomT'> C LAzms,VE A FF%¢* TO °# o

oTRe(L ßE SfEETL £EEl N7 £o, 2d 47 Il39'

TM TWo gnTog vs. sTA7a, sgeg Tids Cou a7 HELo TH47 NE

DocTauE of isk LAw of7% Cæsé KEquzKE5 75#7"C¼ssTstæ* of LAw"Ac7'

unLuy DE C1cED oA t¼fE% C,oVeV 7WE CesE'rA TWE samE CoucT As 7HETETAL

C,oa¢T, T480a61) 4LL Sad SEQucWT£TAGrs of T4s pacCEgoys (c272sG STATE vs,

MC BRzory 89% Saal 187,M9 LFLblooS)Å Flo«foA DE9'T of'TcA^se V

aLTA^Lo Bol £o·2À °Ì > Lo5 (ÍLL A°c

437 Saad tobl (FTA» l933) STATE Dee 7 o FREVE¼aE S 3 So

£g5(,FtA Ted ø,c.A aook) STATE vs. STA4nE , 443 So 3 o A

p.c,A tagt).

ocTRING gécLuoES p,6LITIGATJo o ISS4E

Nec.essAgny Ruteo Po

aT W W1cW wf*B Nc7 Aff E E Cu

FFrerAd cE E s74ß Lb5 7 L w b F M C-M, SEE' S'!%ILE 3 5

7 '400. TH EsE Ra N i McEss9

Clatw»sTAs cE s t ° o e P °*. ozr cuss2ou o R to t10P¢4T2e3g9 sad 24,

GuBSE qu e%7 feoC-E Ea g (fL4, |9 fo) } j;,TAA2 2 a L L A C k z 17 T So 4.]_ S -CL -

A TRTAL CoëT, TQGRE (ogE , C,EMEM L LAGks D�041sCKET4od To CQ AM6E

THE LAW of TWE CAsE.s EE: Síqoc,e4 935 scad RT £39. TMKE haE 'Two

E?CEPTzoas To7WE CoNFzNES of TWE DocTawE '. Ez«s.T, A -Ta%L CouaT1s

T ouuo To FoLLow THE fEsoR Ú·uLLM&TF THE FAcTc LyoA WU$cW THE

PF4°k �5709ETNGUks MADE A<lE No baubE4 7% FACTé 0FTWE CAsE', ANp SECoea

44 @FELLATE CouaT M+y RE CodsMFA AAo °°ucc7 A/V EgRoNE ous Ruu

TH47 44s 8Ecomé Tyé LAw of TNE CAse wWEEE A MANIFEIT STu1TfcE Wow Lo

R E suLT , SEE'. T¶oggTog vs , S TA TE, %3 So. ad AT 809 ( C5TTA b).' dtA

Bol so.Ad 4T lot (44LIEu4ToN vs, STATE, 34 FLA. L. b/EthLy 0 8&a, D363(FtA

o,c.A, AFctL i 2co9) ( REco GN525NG Ty TyTS PosTeoNVIcT2ow CodTEXT

TWE IN Qatay Focasz;s og wQETyea 4 ritAMFvs7 zgTazTzcé wItL occae

TF THE EßRoR %s NoTCoRREtTE© ÑITøG) £5LVEMTETN Vs. çT/+TE, 985 So,

.2d GH (FL4, L{# o,c.A, acog), AD4M VL sTATE, 951 so.2d i173( FLA. led oxA.

Avo[o), MoLO3dG wdELE THE Coaa7 F%NDs ÍNRTÅ Þ%ÑEFECT W TusfgLE Q45 occ-

u R �254E%IT Is T HE R E£fod £18 TL5 T)( o F Tlk7 CougT To CoßEECT THAT M'Jus73cE

TF IT CAM Jti A 4ßEAS CoAFuS fco CEEowG.

I CTRucT*ods«�042-4«E CuMEcfTo THB ConTEynponAd EoaS. OB3ELT5td

R aLE, A Mo 4 8 st T A4 08 TECTrod AT Tß¼L , C4+1 BE PMsEo on A-pFEW L ow Ly TF

A FuMo4M ENTA L Evaue occue.neo·% JaxTzFy l×LoT zmposz% THE CoATent

O PM Eoas oB3ccT5od PvuGE TWE EKVoR inus7 REACÜ DowN %MTo THE VA LTDITY

of TWE �042TRML%TsELF To THE EXTEAT THAT A V EYL9TC7of GuPLTf CouLo Ñ^7

BEEM 08 Th%dEp VITHouT THE Å$51sTAac E of TW4T ALLEGEp EKKoV , SEE', 1%4RTM EZ

Vs, ßTATE, 733 so ngs (FLA, 3ed ACA), GRAgTEv, °/8/ So4A 47 9ss ( crTuG).

TATE Vs. DElvA, S'15 tø.ad (oy3 (,tt¥,(gys (. FLA IN/)( EmpWACIslupelleo)

(QuoT5NG)8gows vs.sTg79 [2.c so, ad yg/, ygy (FLA, L°itge). 'T¶us, Fat 44 ERRoR

To "1 TNTs C,TAdo440, TT musT FoLLow TOAT THE ERROR flLETuorcEv Tl+E

DEFEWOAwT. T4eúEfonE, ALL FuMO4MENT4L EWoß Is A ÜAAmful EYERoR, SEE

Pr EED vs s7A7p ßz7 So.·2 o ( FL6

N EV�254470ELEs9 , $omE EKVo R S, wH%C N lOVE AL s o BGEA R E fG4G E °

As FuMD¼EY7M EMcGs E So C E450uS TMT TWEy Åmoù47 To A DEN 4L

oF &aasTMT7vE DaB pao tesS AMD MY ßE ßA*SB° ) TME *Idctun G

F0K Tl¼ f$as7 T7�042>E rt{ A posT Con y$c7xod M07Tod · $ EE' ÜAL Gu GToA

3 (f FLA L. wcEkty 4T D (g23 (cIT5NG): RTPP Vs·£TATE oso So Jd 9/, 92 IFLA 9

0.c.A, 1995)( THE DocTardE of FuMo4mEwTAL

cEPTrod To Gew EJL p¢o 141a2T504 A & AusT SEENTNG FosT Cod VIcT50% RE LLE

upod GßouMo£ ußTc4 ConLo oR CÑoulo N4vh ßEFAf RAtsED AT TAL AND VM

1)IRECT 4ffEnl (_(puoT14G)'. WInTE pg SMTE, (goo So.2d ¶79 (FLA }" D·cv4,

IM2½ B Ep fo£o v.s.3TATe, 910 so. M 935 L FL/h @ D4A 2 o°'6),

14owEvegW THa TALsTAsT posTCowvicTrow H48EÆc CosTEXT'TL/E

P E75TzoH EYL AszeseTc T@Tg f7EVL TN�254Ü EfDMSE Â%D TÜE STATE SECTEÞ TN E¥Ñ

CAsEs,THE TszkL CouLT Comm377E/A "Funo¼EuTA L EGRoGGWLUÒ LNCThù'

c-TSow£ wWTell A LLouseo TWE ~5uay To MTX THE E ssEWTML ELEmtWTt of TME

OFFewcEs LN C,oudTi ~IL T4aco6#1 of ATTEmpTEo FusT DEG4EE (wnDE*/4do

ATT&wpTEv fßEmEVTTATED mudDEYL WTThl Ñ Ê@$EMm WNEN TÈËE Oc4

FINowGs oF Gul'T Coato GE m4cE TF 5T W4£ fouMO TMAT NE MTE T 4LL

MD UM LA w Fw LLy ThßEATE4ED To Da VroLENC E To og 5 ALLE(aEO VIcT3 oR

TH�254070E«i A*0 TilAT TW3s ACTzoM CRE1)TEo z M TWs th¥Ñ D o f od E ALLE

75m Anuo |oe "TH�254oTHell & W EU~FouîæoED fe% MT vp LWE W $sNo

TakE QUcE ks FvLlows 7+1 ALL Cou»Ts [7sTEv H E*EPÑ,

Tuay TMsTrmTrow od CoowT ß-£

pacpé t(,qs 7,7 Lug.#Llù, Cass Mo'. F- R S-3875(o-

¯C F you Fwo 7µøl TysnE wAs M A77EW fîBD khLyb of folkN BETWEL

fyo|og peneyL Gzvsns ßy homad Ecww C41sodi YoQ M LL 7W E%cAS

exacum s:TAwcer SuRRousauG Tkg ATTereTED knLING IM DECID NG

v4 s ATTemf7ED F30s7 D Eb

oc ATTEMPTEP VoluuTaay toMsL At½W181L o« wheTHEn TÜE ÅTTE çTE¯O KTLL-

ING wAs EXCugøsLE oe. PÆßátTED FAom JusTrF248LE asE OF DE4DLy

Fence.

E Forzé you CAä Fuo TFté D EFêHøAAT Gus LTy o f ATTEMPTED FT^¤T DE¯

GREE AErnlVTTATED MRDEYL TSE STATE mu.IT AoVG 7% FoLlows& T9am

ELE meuT3 GE foùo A f E'A©°dAÜbE D°u �042

og E .THT DEFEHD Adi D.LD SomE ACT %Ñ TENDEO To Chs£ 7üE DE)9Til

of Joün gET&EL ko jon 94V.Lo WuL1 AMDÉ0K· 7ÀsthA BGTHEL 4No og

DhanyL B1vMS 1HAT WENT ßEf°"© ~5"ST TU"N*NÊ'° AB°ar�576T,

Two. DEFEwoAwT Ac7Ev wrTN A f 4EmE01TATEp PE SIGN To k:LL ToM

BeT&EL AND oQ. DAV3D W%LL£ AND 00 ÍÅs#A BE7t4EL AND 0 DA y' B1VMS,

TWeEE.7pé Ac7woque HAVE VEsutTEv1H'T&E D%TA of 30#M BETHEL

Ago joe o A vzo W1 LLG AMD|oa T*ÅA ß E T

7Mø7 £om E oN E paE VENTED TÜE DG FEMDAN7 FAom kuLTN & Tond BE THEL o MV3D

u/ILLs on TAs#A GETbi�254Lo¢ DAßf.y L BMNs, oA HE 00 á,

FAss lH5 T,7s lJus # (2Bcfvae yu CAd FLNa 7H E DEFEWDAÑ7 (MLÍ{ of ÅlTEMflEû SECoMB

DEGREE hragoest as A LEssE« TNCLaosc offME 7%GTME Mus7(RoVE TW E

FoLLot»$db1wo ELEME%TJ SEfnuD Å �570Eh50%AELEDoq87,

o ME , ¶[oavryAd EûW3N CA%sorJ ~�576NTEM T30M ALLJ Com m777Eó AN AC 1

C woa L O 44vE RE Su hTEv TN THE DEWT R o f To ᥠ8E THEL A-No oR DA VJP WM

buchoa Tas#A GE THEL Anojoa 04<tay L arvus excE& rkT someoM E pa EvawEo

Mon«red EDW52 CAZsoû f¢om l<5LLLA G ·3ay4 BE TWEL Ågg jog og yz9

(9)

TAs HA ß�254%ELr&ÑO)os 046�254f L ß3V16s oR (#E Fèi LEQ To pa go.

'Two. IM onnevt To CoN v3:cT oF 4TTEmffE0 SEcowo PE%EE NR OS YT

Is NOT bíECESS A4y fog.WE �254TATETo fanvé 7pE DEFEùoAAT iko A paEmEp1TATeo

INTEMT To CAusé DEWT4

EFo!LE fou CM FTH o 7H£ DEFEN DANT Ô uT LTy of A GG R Al/ATED BATTEff

As A LEssoR 1McLuoED DffEME E TNG GTATF_ fflusT ptLoyE Tl¼E foLlohMTA CLE'

(v}EM7s ßEyogo A RL+s&kBLE DouGT,

oNe, TbMT Maameu Evwz+1 Ch5soy EN Ten TzodA LLy C Aus�254pBOD3 Ly

aem To zoux eE.TuEL AND|of DAV5D ¼$LU�042

Two; NoR-mAN EDUFA CAssoN, Z+1 CommLTT72b THE |1ATTEuy,ß zg..

EMTJodoLL/ oA kMow1MGLy ChuSED GnEAT BoDILy 44Am To Tolly 8E THEL

ND )oR DAV'30 W3LLS

pA&E L(oy? 7.7, L3ME M(Ò

Befh«E you CAW FIND TH£ DEFEN04MT GuilTJ ol'ÁGGVAVATED A5S AuLT

ks A Lesse«1HCLuaEn ôFFENsE THE STATE Mus1pkoVE THE fuLLowu)G Four ELE-

l×e8Ts ßE yos A eCASouAGLE DoaBT. TVE FILsT TNGEE ELEW1E97c DE F5xEs AsskLT

ogE, gogmAg Eowzn CA1scu 7ETeM77aA ALLykuo uM LAw FaLLY TUREAT-

ggeo E TTyen ey wwo og AcT, To oo yxo LedcE To TAs44 BETHEL Aupfgit ogg9

zvws.

'To AT THf T7mE NoA*ld EDw:N CAJsow AffE¼�254EOTo N4V6 TH£ ABILIT

To CAAAj047THE TWßEwT.

TlkéE. TffE ACT OF ¼¢mAd EDWIA CATsw CrtEY4TEw »N TWE MIgo of Tøs#A

BETlfEL kws/on DARRy' MvMS 4 WELL -Fouuoep FE*4 TSBT Tlhi VJoLENCE W4s

A Bau7 To Tal<E P Lhc E ·

foue. THE ksshaLT wks mkDE WTTH A oEAPLy weøpo»,To wz'r'. A fnLEnam.

S EE' ßm37H 1/s STAT E,Ces E No( _G Dv9 MD ofM7DN f3LED bdE K D oo9 ( flÂ,

o. c A).

(/o)

ff7771oMER Mst¥Ts TW4T T#6 ABovE -Juay MsTaucT�541ohsod CoadT-Tuvo

'TkavabÜ F�041¥Eog AT7empTgô çzasT øggaEE maaogg OR 4T7pTEppæEmEDTTAT�254D

MuRDEG LtampzgG THE ÅLLEGED V3cTm ToGETVSK By GG5NÚ THE Ago

C-oN 3ANCTT oM u encU sw G L E C oug7 LES$ER 766 $7ATG To pealæ ITs BunD EW

W HEM A LL¤WED 74E 3uay To MT)( TyE 66£ EN T5A E ELE MENTs of 7NE o FFEd.SE To

C-oNVETEo Ü$M kFTOA (FN0%ÑÛ %H&T ALLEGEO V3CTFms TAsyA ßE9bCEL,DAY20

w zLLs ANo /op- DA1t&/ L 83VENs wEYL E TynenTeó w H zLE Jo yd ÊbT0EL NA0 A WELL~

Fog,4c eo Fes 744T Vso LewcE w4s 4,YTo T4ke pt/kg ReDucEn Tgé s747e's guapw

of f RovF To (Rovéo THE Ess EN75AL BLErnE%TS of TWE OFFENsE CÜAltbEP,, SEE

ARTSMEg vs.S¼7@ %( so-ad qss (czTzub); REEo vs.s:TATE,971 soad 3½,

3Vt ( FLA..2002), fouM& vs. GTATE , 753 Soad ·µ5 72] [ FLA- i # O·c.Ai ·1o6o).

STmz L4aLy,uf 3Aw>E s vs. STATE , Toh So. M b5, 7WE FLFTl4 0$sTazc7

C.ouaT of AqpE&L WELD 7HAT L Lmepa&*kLLGGED V%CT3m3 TobE7HEK LN A £$AGLE

CounT o F ÆGG RAVATeo Ass AuLT A+to pER m377TNG TUE 3asy To FiETutut g \fE605c7

oF GurLT/ As chl46&E0 CRWTEs SERTous DuEFAoCEss ßeßLEms.

AS 4 £SERTeo ßy ÜAmES, TkÉ 34a/; 8AsEO uppg THE MsTgacTrods GzVEd

c,oulo #Ave Fou o Mrm GuTLTy F:ND5NG T44T HE TNamTENEo BAg ß_Es ANo T947

H ECksoN, BuT #°T 8AR$Ei\Wks FAT &NTENE0 ßY THE TI(BEAT. YoWEVE¾S4cY À

S CE NA Rro tutu Lo Nc7 COM s717u7 E THE C Q1<n E of A GG MVATED Ass AuLT( CzTsNG¼

4.00 i FLA&TAT, DE FzM3MG CRw3NA L ÅsSAaLT Â$ Ñ IN TENTzogA L, wt Latuful

THaEAT "By WoR°s oK ACT To oo Vxo LEntcE To TMt y E lsved of AMo7HER, LoupLéo

WTTN A*[ 4 ARENT 487LIT/ To pp So, Awo De>ING SomG Ac7 w 47c8 CREATEs A

ELL~fouMO fEM IM SucH OTygg pe&504 TÜAT WoH V$o L EACE Is %MmigEp(7,

E°VEnd H 1A"©s, S« paA, 7¥5 F5 Fr M 05 sTarcT CougT l4sco THaT

T W45 REVEyLSzGLE Etz¢osÊFo« TWE CoueT To oeuy THE DEFEND4otT's Mo71oMTo

DZ5M7ss TWE AMENDED ZMFORMAT5cd AMo fuMDAmE¼TAL EVRcR To 3MSTg7

4 WA-f WW1cA WoaLD pEYtr»JT TVE Tu.&y To (;go 7/¼TDME ALLE6ED

VicT~1m WAs T@EATENED WHILE TH6 OTH6R VJcT2m (44p A WELL -Fpagpgo FEM

THAT VIoLENCE was �576MyggNQ RT g,

TN THIS fosT Cow vTcTsed, 44GEAS Cow TgyT 7pE ETIT7aME* AFFzRMA

T7VELy ALLEGEs T#4T Hf [�041#.sNo OT4ER RE Cous.SE fb4. STS LoT TA WÑ$cÑ TlfE

Emcp f ßy MOT30M 3% 2N AD EG>u ATE OK $N EFFEcT5VE To TgST Tgg LE6 A Lv7

oF HTs DETENTzog'QNo H�576GHLTbHTc7HE -zgEpqzTy of Hzs szTuATzou Gy

(*omp4RTNG IT TNosE OEFENDANTr TÑg SEE5 ß4CoA V&, STATE, 991 So-2d

C-omEfL vs. $TATE, 991 Sowd Hito , mTLLB VL £TATE îlß Sad 4¼; %NoLE

Vs, STATE, $32 smad %& (FtA, 56 o;c.A., a002), AND 'JAmEs VL STATE, To/g sm

9d Gs; Tal Lo4TcH Tgf FuNoAmewTAL EWloß 15 so SEazous. TH4T TT 4MouyT

To 4 05WT4L of Sa8sTAdTrvE puE Faocess A o /44y SE 84xn/47 An)/ 75me "

suc.LuornG Fo« THE FzesT TzmE w A pocT coa yrcTzoM MoTzout,sEE( QA LT2an-

ToN vs. sTATE 14 FLA. L, WEEh.Ly AT D $63 (. Em p W A s,5 s 4cv EP),

f ETrTzoMEyt AsseytTs THAT To Gzvé BkcoN,C,omeLy _MLLs,TzwoLEþuo

5, RELzEfaf A GE«Tous fuMP4mENT4L EMo@,Ba7 To DEqDEFEHD T

sod / TVE 5'4me ßELTEF FD¢ VTTTu4LLf TDEN TTCA L CTRCamgTyeg3 Lamp-

LLEGEp V7cT7ms To GETS£yt TN EWcH STNGLE deuwTs,7'wa THgouGH FTve

o F ATTEmeTcp F:MIT PEd/4EE muapEn o(E A TTEmeTED f6EmEDITMTao muROEV- WTTH

A FL¢E4am THRouGM usE OFTHE AND on "C-oN~luNcT50/J wHTc# FATLs To so7.-

1sFzeo TH E E sS EH7M L E LemEu7s of TH�254oFF EW SE IS A lhkMz FCsT TN 3Qs75cE

THAT DoEs ntoT pe.omoTE -w F4cT, TT CoKGo0Es -fdyluess Ano unzrow7Ty zn

E DEc..[ssoMS of TH%s CASE, 155GEC ~Two GELæ) "

2 VJE w TlfE CM4A GI*lu IN D$cTm ENT S5 GNEb o Al DECE% £6e i 19 3 8

AsrT. ST,47é ATToantEy CGET 2Ep.LTN , pEVgEu> Ty.g fgce of Tyg 3 o c 7

DEFEMDMT CAzsod w As CQec,gp 17y ggS "go cyg µ¡umggyt -7

oR makE Hun LT4ecé fo, gy Cg7

(la)

z ER LLN NEyéxLygoA ygsco 9ATH of oFFICE AT THE TunE HE gøooesE D TH&T

NDKTmENT,GEE1 GmzTH V-STATE,CASE No! E Dv9··l1D of5N1oM fLcEO 3µ

2ao¶ ( FLA c5*' p.c Al f-5- X1. 6, a7.1 S i,Ü) l 2) A%).

Yg:A L Coy4T's D1 VESTEp Sas TccT MWTítB Tugzs OzcTzod

'To gæcsé caTE THE offEnse CQA«GEo of FzesT:DEGS&

1×áRøeyL C.%k&GES W NBCEt4G TikE ÞLLEbED ? OSEcuToQ

UR4uTh oar24TxoM To FEnFoam TNosE DuTzGs To mzA-

1.ffe¢14L Hrs GIC,d4TdEE oM IMDJcTmEWYfMEET

W WLcid RENDE1tEO IT A"NuLLIT/9mouwTED To 4

b)TGC&FR34bE Of JusTscE.

FACTs oF·Tl+55 C+cE'.

DEFewoMT CAlsod, LLEGED /fNo 46ßEATs TLßT HE MagTgE DssCNAME

OBcAUSE',

CO T&E zwo$cTm ENT1s'VpLo N TWAT TT w45 G1GMED Byk MoM

.IFIED STATE A TTo£def 0 F D *dTf bloM*A ,

ATTonNEy, 8uTI T w4s C¼#Eo ß/ THE SpEcTAL CoaNsEL's W o

NEVæ."TAkes)"oATM ofoFFloE,"TN wRICH EXEmf7E0 SAto CouMSEL5

xGMATuAE TSE%E oM TifE IN03CTmENT $ EE 1 DEFENOMD CornFos2TE

EL[4).

DEFEMDANT CAL5r»l, À RGuES TVAT Tyg Ass'T.C74(& ATTo AMEJ CMET 2E6LIN,

w4s upAuTWe aIz Ep To p1TNTs Teex4L GTs SmøATa¢E Døl O E CEM B E£ I

LNDTcTmgxT S REh'i'

THE ALLEGEO ÅSS7 STATg ATTogg gy CUET 2Eg LzN ALLEbE Dcy FAzLeo To

AopeeLF E)CEcuTE L.oyALTy OATMs To SE�254vEÊ£ A CONGT&TUT5cM4L JuMcxAL

OFFT c£vts w37N R ErgcT To C ouT

DEFENoknT CAzsoA+ CodTENT1oMS PELLES oM SECT1oM # 87&o5, FLß- ETAT

(l493), LohlICA REquwEs'.

AN pEYLSoA uße Now oß ßEREAFTEYL Is Employco By o

w po Mow og. (fsyce AFTEvt (2s) ON TW FayRo LL OFT@"STATg " og kny

opus Sueorvsszons To E &GuT E 7t+E pctéscareco LoyMTy

okTW, TlfE £cc TxoM DoEs MoT EX p agrs Ly R1rg use E. TH4T fEAlod TO

EX ECUTE & N EW Anto CEPkeATE ohTh Foa EMU bl EW f o917sod o R

o ffFcE .

DEFENv4ùT CATsoù, ASSE¢Tzogs quT FoyL7H TTS WTEfLgúTAT7ad of SEcT1dl

8%.og Tyg7 A TuD�576C5ALOFFicEYLG VWo FALL 7o peop®f E5GuTBTH fnEçcax-

geo oATH Ago Ñ4vE TT.paLy MoT4A2'2ED Lock AuTHoß57 To4C73 Wouto 8624G

THE STATaTE TNTo DLRECT CoMFLTCT W 7

Juozcal oFF1cEVLs 'JACLuoxwG NLL TÜose WWo CoM5%DE*So D

DecTago Tspung RELEVA4T To THIs CAg,'T4kE AND fAopesy CEcuTE T4604¶

EtpostLéo By A«TscLE Å,$EcTzog¯%ofTWE FLo4%vA CoÑs75TqT$od pason To Ass-

umme TuoycsAL OFFxcE . A RTscLE JI, SECTxo, T(B) oF TM FLoasoA consT27-

LA Tr osJ FRov.Lo Es

�254%MSTATEAno Couà7f oFFrcéy GEFort�254E87EYLTws9PM

THf DuTsEs of Tyé oFFxce, s 94LL GWE faoRo 45 ßEQ 4TAEo 8y Ed W

uo s#A LL £tuemt oæ nFFza«

"I " De s o Le m4Ly 5 wEE4 lo¢. AFF2am) Tl/4T I WT LL kp fo^T,

(noTecT, Aao DEFEND TRE CoA STzT Tron Amo GOV EMm ENTo F TWE

ud57E© ETATES ANo DFTFYE STATE of FLoaroA', TlfkT 7 Am DuLY

(Qu A LPFLED To yo Lo offgcé ü M c En 7gé CoET1To T¥oA o C

ARO TH47 T WT LL wELL AuD fazTHFulLy fe<t Foam TH�254DuTSEs of

(TIT£e o F oFFJcE)

t4E éco. SEE! TNG pt, gy vs, SISLEy, 995 So 2d M[FLA avoS),

IIE¥tE WAs t40 TH2NG IN Th TSTLE OR Goof of 7 4T 4cTwSJC TMDI-

C,ATeo ANy zNTENT To RE LTevE THE sTATE ATTomEyoF yy p T pe 9 H

By LAw

ouEVEYL,ÍÜ9CE ß Å £7&fulg q3

To STGN Ahl ZN DTc7mgg7 yy y

TH4s STAT TE, 9oss 23, l's s A FReVroes er FoLL ouas

kN IN0TCTmENT s HALL HoT BE Fouào ws7pou7 on e

of Tu; ElvE ÜZ) ÔRado N(LoCS . LJÅÒ/ So Foudo, Tye s4c»e s Wait ge

S:Lbùen By 7F�040EGT&TE ATTa«MEY|o« AcTulG sTATE ,4-T7omsEy,

Ano THé futErv4Q oG Ac73Må fogémAg SQ4·LL 2N gottçy 37"g Tgqg gut"

SIGM x T, Ado RETuc4 57 5NTo CoueT. wpen/ no7 so ,s», THE me-

4M £44th ENoegre Tgé usous "Ato Te«g eãLe9 og 775e g5t,g, szeg

S.An s, Ana ReTues LT MTo oFE9 C,co¢T,"

4 LT4cwGN 27's A SIGNIFIc-4ø7 FacT TH4T"CbigT 2EnL18 ,"4Ltz&eo Assr,

STAT e AT7ens e aa sp CcmL C ouns E L MJ2 SIGNFO 42s SIGNA T4A E oW TlfE TN DET-

tv) éMT ,.S EE I Dt-FEv o AaT's C,om poszTe ExyzezT .[A.).

ZT1 LRREFu1ABLE TMT''cyc72e94%N"wAs KoTuMoENL oATHoFoFfztg

THET$mE ME $3sAED on TMT DECem�254E<Ll L%3 En»zcTmEuT.lÅowEVEVÅEva,

SEGNED 7VE �254ooy*oF gré zàosczmENT spNért.

To sqqps.T THexE Cou'TeM11ons , D EFen0447 CA$soif 8aou GH T 8EFoLE 7@g

SECR ETApy of STATE,01vEzoss of E LEC7zoAS,Üum AM RESouacG AssT, MRS,kATNEuøE

E, Roose% L otA7eo sa lîol, Títé CAq5-tbL Gust-oM G TkLLAÜ ASS EE; PlnG¼ A . SE¥ !

D&okirs Com po svTé �254XHz�254173CB). To Coa Fz«« THT£ CLA7n

ÅS THE �040«oscca71MGoFF$cE,"AscT. STA7E ATToG+tEy"DTú HoT ypyE &

VA LLo W azTTEN, 5Vv&M OKI H of off1CE F3tgg µ$7y yyy Cyggk oF TE�040éCouel AND

o FFICE of TWE 9T47E comp7acLLC1L A-S R EQuMEc By LAW A«o f9 R ka AMT To F>S.

(i0

4ND (1) (i99 3) \fDR DID C NET 2E1t L1%f M4 VE 4N AffoTNTm ENT

füR Sun T To fas. # 7)L i g, ß s ¿Syy, op y-NB STATE ATToFøUf W·£7H AVTÜtxt%Ty

To 40V sE TWE GraA40 2¶ 45 J DONE M TH1S COL

u R$S 03CTzoù of TWE CouëT To TR-y AM ACcasEo DEFEdoAAT15 MoT INVokEo

AN° DoES NoT RX7sT tut LEss TWE STATE EzLEs A INFoem*Tzo^1 oMNozcTmeAT.5E

STATe vs, AnDewsr»/, £37 so.ad 1.373, ts79( FLA n ß9K RoLDING JuarsogcTxog

To Tgy Aar Accuseo coës MoT EXIs T LutoEtt 4RT2cLE T j 15 of T&E FLonzo4

C.oM ETLTuT10N UNLES2 7HecE 3$ EX7AN7 YaLTD XM ForzmA71oN,1D0$cTmENT

OR PRESENTmEuT FILED BY TWE -STATEi c.F. CoLsva vs,STATE ,1n So.2d 55%

555 (FLA. y ho.c.ø, 1948(s'J;47£ vs. T,8LAr-k, 385 So. ad /3 7a S.cT.hty ro, H80

THE CAs e AT 6, Is t>M E cf L4c k o F SwE2cT mA77gvL iung vJcTIo y TNE

TRT4L Coa wg7cp was NeT p(AopETLLY TN MED ¼74E FoLLowTA G flE4So4Si

(Ö TW6 A LLEGEo AssT, s:TAT E 47ToaA E y CWBT 2 ErtL%N,wyo FALçzFreo

A LLE &AT1ods S TATED THéT &E W AS AM ASST, .CTA-TE ATTouEV fos7HE ELE VEuTH

aDTC$A L CZKca37 foyt 0ApE Coo $�041gTy of �040[ogng''ygS ga7 pq Ly ¼ayyog_

.2ED To ENDuRs E c1t hDV35E ~CINGaAno 3any wW5cH RETaadEpTt+E voLo 1M-

DTcTmENT oN CAsE Nof. f 9M875G, C SET 2 EON; D$D No7 44v6 A MLTD5

W RE TT EM oATH oFoffzcé om DEcem6Es ] b, t%3) ÍÜE%Eft>nB CNET 2E RL2N QAo No

AaT4o¢x2A7soM~To SIG En THE TNOTCTmEwT ssoe No; 7

RE yzcw7 Gooy*ofTWE zuorcTmeMT, As LJELLAs,THE zNoyc7mexy

S LcME6 By EM fo&TEm. GÜMG7Mb D EFEMoqNT C AzsoN, wtTH ·7i49 Typ Es o f

Dou GLE TEopes.»y 7 w % - &n,4*c%, 9 93

CUARGEL (LEVTEb> TbfE vûy of . WrCTmENT foR COGAT OHE �041Hoem Aù CA3se>d,

DTD LlN ÌJ)Wfn LLf AN o fELoN Lo us k ut A bjumAd BE%N G,% wzT.' Fa o m A

PclE m L'o3747Eo DE CLGM Tc �254Ffec7 Tyg geg7y y p ÍÈÌÉ fERSoA kILLEO �042NoWEVBL

od THE FACE of Tyé TxozcTmenT Fon CouaT oaE DEFEdoAA7 wAs CWW,co wzTM

FJ Rsí DEGaEE M ug oEg," Tgg 9z fpLgEµT cp43Es " Fog gg g,h E C,ßIm E -

PvEVXEW ~1H�254ßoof of$NoTcTmENT Foc CoudT Two 70% F3vE MonmAh!

C,A%sod Faom A gg E m &c LTATED DE 5%M A TTEYn(T To KT LL k W X &E TN 6 ·Üow

EVEYL,0blWE f#cE of TNDKTmEST

t R44.r,Eo h/TTH ATTEmFTED FusT DEG¢ËE muavEV- Two OTFF6Y-EMT WAscpM)' foA

THE SAmE Ca&E, ALSC,hLL CQA¢GE5 wG7E Now EXxs73G CdA%Es",47 TH E

TybE oF DEFEH v&T cgs PTRECT 4EV5EW DanTN6 THE 6*410ECTczo

SEE'. C AT sod Vs.STATE, (,9 5 .sv.ad 872 l FLA·3«L 0·'A IS91]· S AÍE VS Ú Phi

(e 5 9 Go, Al S Ga ( FLA l%5). OuGW & D EFEMO ANT C-AZ5old, D%REGT R E VZE W (4Lom

ATL :2o, i995, To(1497), No Sec,M C.a7,ncs of A TTEmfTED f@mE°77AT E°

MURDE1 og ÔTTE �040Tggfys7 DEGG.EE muGDE1t �254X7sTEDTN THE STATE of FLo**°A-

DEFEWO&lT CAZsoM,STAT Es f%om CounTs ,o Thad f3VG, MUST 6�254ÅEwL~

T S M, ßEckusE t>F &E TN G McN- EXTsTM G CM 4* GEs P WW GÛ % Tha A(l 491), OM

DEFEWo4N7 PTßEc7 RE VIE w, SEE! SmT7H Vs- STATE, CASE Mo', 5 0o9- p o o INTo

f%LEO Tu4E % J.co9 ( FLA, 5" p.c-A ), A kTNS VS- STA TE (,71 So,2d 567 ( FLA l"p,c,A

1491 CL4/7e# V.c, WRLS 4$9 so.ad FL3 (FLA-54 o-cA. l9%) 6

LEYlTHecLmAM y �254So.ad 9%,MnLS Vs.STATE, 7t4 sø2d il98(F½ 4 o·cA. IV .),

owEVEYLi PLoewA SupaEmE CouTs DEc1stoN kBRoùATzas

p MoK. CAs E R E CoGM32MG THE ç FFENS E o F A77EmøTEc FE Le»1

MüRDEyl,VòuLO BE (%pfLTED To LL CASES PEM9M&oM DTLECT

REVTEw oß oto7y ET FLNAL

.5EE', DEFEntoANT's Compvaz1E1, gg[)3GzT-Lh),

RTrn A«ti-yf THf GaAso Tutty'I INOTc7me4T £HEET ODEs ßEFLECT T#dT

QEFEwo4MT C41sod, WA5 %N 03CTED øM oR hEoa7 DE Cém EEe l, l9%

u/WEneA C THE T474L CoueT FaocE20MGs WE E Cod cL40E0 Þd 4F4+'

(17)

av, l ¶ § 5, ks 7HE �040MNouøED SenTEnc E wa2E zm pos ED ou E&c H Coan7 46voE ,

As THE PENDENCy of TWE' ou£CT Aqqe&L \MLC F1LED OM NOV6me>ce 29, L¶%

LW2MÚ THE AMMouMCEmENT OF S7AT E Vs,C4hy; %4 90�042-1A$52p(FLA.10lÒ,

H WEAs 17s R EN 01Tzog of An e FFramasc E oW AfeBA L ou os kha7 pl ove see 21,

9%' SEE( MonmA4 CA$sow Vs,STATE, M5 So, M Bla i FtA, 3 ed o.e,A. 14TT).

T}}E BE LEVAùT FAc7s of TH5s CosE AaE THAT DEFENDAMT CALsoM,A LLE6E-

Ocy ANo oMLAW FuLLy wQLLE IN DADE CouMTy i 5Ho7 og kxu2c JERrr>ATAE Jackso4

Psom A PREmEo2TA TEv OE szGN To 4-FFEc7 HTs DElATHs

FuaTHE¢ Empluszs 54ews DEFEwoAwT C4Jsod, W45 T41Ev o#Fo"4 (4),

CouA7s a F ATTEmfTEo FzasT 0 EGME á©E* / o R ATTEmFTED f*E"©*T^TE© **

LutoE¾£ECTroW Ê777.ogf4dOÍ7404(f) FLA STAT.

THE F5 FT 4 PrsTerc7 cou¢T o F ApFEW L Nos 4 L'© Volceo Cow ceus , ser Gn5N-

AGs, ys s7A7E, Ml saw t%2,1%þ( FtA, 5%c,A. t9%) REJ2E_w Çg±±TEg:aloJ(,

316; 65 i sow 4% (FLA, SEPT. 8, W(4), 45 THE CoagT 'l NELD',

"THE CougT MAINTAMEo Tß47 THE LEGELATud6 DuMoTINTE@

foK Som E CR5mzMA L offEt|SEs tIxcLao1AG EzesT DEGaEE F E LoNY

MuR oEg / To £yggonT A Con vscTxon Foe 7&E7R ATTEmf'TEP Eom

1011szoM· TWE D3sTG%CT CoueT SAgo TNe7 TYE o FFedeE o F Munce+·

CowTmptATes A ComplETEC ÑCT DF Nom$CToE AND SUGGESTED

THAT THE LAw £ Wouto MoT p(LE SamE INTENT To tnuRog¢ uREMTHEtE

.Is No DL¾TH ßTmpLy BECAusE THE E4LT occa@S OugTAG TWE

CommIsszoM OK ATTe<nfTEv Comtrr$sszoù oF A fE LoN y."%D. AT lWh

TWzs cowg7 44s NTE*paE Teo recTzoM Ê 777·c 4 (t) FE4 sTAT , ( t hÜ,To NgnN

TH4T AN 477£mpT Te CommTT A $f ECTFrc IÑÍEwT CAImE MWEE

"A SpEtzPac IN7eNT To Com#75T 4 FARTzcaLAR CR7mE AMO

t{d ovE4T ACT Tou>Aco T7s commzsszon."SEE\ E�042G·¯[QomAs v.s STATE

(/fù

5al so. M 7ag, T i o L Ftk l9gg g gpTay ys, STATE , y 37 so.2d to47, Low Lo¶¶ ( FLA.

I983

TuSTrcE OVEYLToM /MAIMTA»NEO $N A DISSEWT TW4T THE C.RTmE oG

TTEmFTEp FE LoNy tw agvEvt 7s Le G1cøtty ¼FosssELE'/ 10. A T 4 so(oVätToA,1

DTss04714GL HE fOINTEV ouT'TN4T A CoùV5cTxow Fav. TWE se�254c2FrcTNTEAT To

C-omm37 THE UMDEYLLf5NG Cg%mE .LD, £ EE ( 5 771-oy (Ü, FLA- STAT.( l¶¶)),

A LThoaGb|i DEFEA pART C4pod, WAS IM OTCTED fon ATTEm pTEp F$asT D E-

GaEE muçoEn|on ATTémfTec pEmEoz7ATEn mu(Lc EE fort Co®To Two 7HaG-

C,vadTu F5vE, As T H-E UNDELLf744 CKTmE oF A77Emf7ED FæT DEGSEE mu�254DOL

4ATT Emf7EO p¢Evncv2T47En mVav WL CONVICT$oM3 msT 8E V4CATEO, 8ECAu£ E o F

TyE Gaay oEczszod.

A CCon 0TNGLy; A s THE EbpoA s:u p 4 Em E CoußT 145TIC E O VEv.Tow RECEP E

Eso,» THE idotozaGI+r Amto7re, vs s747E, y sk so, ad vse,7)u77pEn E z s 4 cRImE o

A77Enf7Eo �570EoA% M¼ROE�254-145ÚÜ04%o T&�041sQECKS$od t%ST BE ÅQfl%EP To A

OASES FENo7NG cSl OIRECT REVIEW oß MoT y ET FT,MA L, KEE! SmTTH VI. CTATEg 59<g

0.2 d to 63, loGG (FLA.19%),

DEFEW044T C4TsoM, A-PFEWL WAS FENDTNG, T&E MfdBmE CouGT ISSuEV TSE

Ray bE Crs7aN uM1C H EFFECTzVE ÅGoL%SÚ ED # 7ÜE C4%øb O f ATTEn(7 EO FE Lauf

D BYL on ATT6mPTED �0406EmE%T&TED mue.0E1L,wk2c& t\l EVEV CK$sTEO #9u4TMG

DEFEponNT CA1sod D%<LECT RE y

EtEks Wert�254i THE Foaa N) Coua7s oF A77'E-91Eo F3"ST DEÚ©EE ®"#° °"

ATTeyTee pdEWeoTTATE4 mu(LDEVL DEPEWAAdT CA sod, uRC TRIEW og AND T#£Tua

REHDE«&'THE¥L VE¼ozc7oN SEConn BEGæEE ATTEmpTEP MRm* msT GE VACATEv

A£ TWn C4sE W4s FEWo5dG DN PT4ECT REVIEW OUß3NGTSE GMf PEcTsToM, SEE

C-43soM Vs.STATE7 W9 5 sv.2d 672 ( FtA, 3ad p.c,A. LM'O, AFf1RmAA

CArsoù, preECT kBVx Ew, SEé' SmrTH vs. STATE, CA-sE NoC 5 Do9- Goe Of*H T°

f1LED TøE 20, 2vo9 (FLA. P p·trA-); FREpeytTeks. vs.s74TE &75sd 9e FtA

09)

DEFENoANT CA:so#, REQUEsT TH%s NowoaABLE LoußT T 4DoßESS 7/fE

/v)EYGTO OFALL CLA%S NW41R dLSo CT A00m9 fRo CEpunAL Euoes! To

A T74c¥ ALL gccesor 79g1 con cLus2peLy gEFuTE3 OEFooRwTY C LAzms.

SEE! Sn47H vs, STATE, CA.ce Mv: 5 Doy- no , oFN5e4 F1-LEn 7quE 2f,,looll(d.,

5 " o- C, A,), A kMs Vs - S TATE, Ml so, ad 5$7 lFLA. 1+" o - cA. W9't) , c. L4yTcw vs.

Wzl LS L{S9 Sv. 2d Ûl3 ( FLb 5*' 02 SU L\-EVAMVs . LeA7pamAd Ljs so.ad g

Goø2ALE2 Vs,STÁTE, CASENo; 3 Dio-lo35g LT, CA&E Nc; 98- Lo56 (FLA, 3d ox-Ah

CoMCLUSIoM / RELIEF SouGHT

W W EyLE Ft+E, DEFEgoART Àss E¼Ts TbfAT BM ED QçoM TIEE foa�254

AFLTCABLE Lowö C,1TAT1ows oF AuTNoRITyj ARG4mEwT3 wW ooEs DEw-

£TaATEs vapro " C Løms To #4VE TÑoi-E Cow v2cTzods oM CoasTs Tya.oøG#ooT

WE 1&ozcTmbîT varA7Eu, A t.so THËAN p j oÊCon1anc75&N GsED 7N 7H15 3af

1MsTitacTzods VACAJGv'j oc A NEw'TexaLG As THzs HoMosA-6LE CounT Un,STHE

£gMEYtEWT SUINoí4Tf VESTE10 oß \ÜA YNE Í©µs7x7s7sod To AEyeesE CONVrcTwÑs

¯TM TH6 IM~íEa&rT oF 3asT1C E As TWE A forEmeyT5où�254v42&som STATEO &E

REpaEST 44 E VIDENT54*-y ReyµrNG7o AsgEng AND E-CDivE THU S

LN 3a £Tic E ,

REspécTfaLLy SuGM3TTEDr

lÝ0Rt%M f�042CAT50%,L(lllåC

TAy Lo« C4SECT50^3AL TMSI

8 sol khmfTog Cfud & k° f05' L·

pe44Lf, [[og704 32

Á£so¿ 4 L L CAs cs 4FTEvt 'TVE Ocoy CA1E A A.e t40 T P G A E m Tm

S$TuATrad.sEE: 5~TATE Vs.Gay,(,sq So· 2b £5a ( FLA, t 9951

(20)

DA7

LANCE«THe p em e LT3E s oF pesary 'C DE C- LME 'íl4+TÅ kN

Tué Fo«e cxxaC+ øvcamaac Mo Timwe r r< sT«mo ut zr ané,'

ás (i),(FtA sT4TL

EXE cuTEv Tf4£ I pg- oF dpp5L aoth

Q,cs pcTFuGtg Su4 mLTTE:c

loamAd E- CArsoq 09Bb

Cg«hFI CATG oF SE+V5c-r=

2, NoamA a E. casso6 lhy-E ß y C-eo*Py , W4T A '¼& Ano ces E 1

qq oF 7tdG Fné bokG QGTzTroa r÷,.u+57 o F W AGem Cm+fu £ , l&s ß EEM FvN

gy Sa&LM Dtyck C4 Te pusou o ff3CTAT Fe+- mM LSAG ¼A 2nisTrf-uTzoiJ A L AMP u-5

F1acT CLAss p6sTArv6 f2EFA2 Ta', ÔLE$k of THE ouøT3 ms, muag#y, Tp/po l

cacusT CoueTo F FwroA p,o dox k2c_gge FtonoA 323v7- o bzo, ,4ao ST E

ATToaséy oFF1ts nya. Rose+T L,'Suvst 'J%. I o5 No+TH ZEFFEmN S'TME7

j_EMf) F%«¼ A '

ou TWs DAy of ApasL _aoll,

pggp&Fm}r Cußvs71eo

y-oa,vøx é> cars6 et bio

T4 [on CøaeJ1oA4 L 3dc 7�57674750

g sol ¾pTva £payror Roac /Fqtosa

pp+µ FtauoA a2m p r7v7

EXHIBIT A

, . �042 . r

w

p. - ruocò JL . e

n

p .

229

asu

á .6

. . . . . ï . -C

p

w

í .. . . .. * u. e w .

n

y e d

n

4

m p. 6. r . . .. .. . 4 B -

S

IN THE ·CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAi CIRCUITIN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA - FALL TERM, 1993

STATE OF FLORIDA v. INDICTMENT

NORMAN CAISON, Defendant I. FIRST DEGREE MURDERII. ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MUR R

III. ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MD R ---IV. ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MUl!B_ER . .

V. ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER I

VI. POSSESSION FIREARM DURING

COMMISSION OF FELONY p

IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, duly called, impaneled and

sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County

of Dade, upon their oaths, present that 'on or about the 12th day of November,

1993, within the County of Dade, State of Florida, NORMAN CAISON did

unlawfully and feloniously kill a human being, to wit: JERMAINE JACKSON, from

a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human

being by shooting JERMAINE JACKSON, with a firearm, in violation of

s. 782.0"4(1) and s. 775.087, Florida Statutes, t�570the evil example of all

others in like cases offending and against the peace and dignity of the State

of Florida.

COUNT I I

The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, duly called, impaneled and

sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County

of Dade, upon their oaths, present that on or about the 12th day of November,

1993, within the county of Dade, State of Florida, NORMAN CAISON did

unlawfully and feloniously attempt to kill a human being, to wit: JOHN BETHEL,

from a premeditated design to effect the death of said person or any human

being, by shooting JOHN BETHEl with a firearm, in violation of s. 782.04(1),

s. 777.04, and s. 775.087, Florida Statutes, to the evil example of all others

in like cases offending and against the peace and dignity of the State of

Florida.

01

CQUNT I I I

The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, duly called, . impaneled and

sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County

of Dade, upon their oaths, present that on or about the 12th day of November

1993, within the County of Dade, State of Florida, NORMAN CAISON did

unlawfully and feloniously attempt to kill a human being, to wit: DAVID WILLS,

from a premeditated design to effect the death of said person or any human

being, by shooting DAVID WILLS with a firearm, in violation of s. 782.04(1),

s. .777.04, and s. 775.087, Florida Statutes, to the evil example of all others

in like cases offending and against the peace and dignity of the State of

Florida.

IV

The Grand.Jurors of the State of Florida, duly called,.impaneled and

sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County

of Dade, upon their oa'ths, present that on or about the 12th day of November,

1993, within the County of Dade, State of Florida, NORMAN CAISON did

unlawfully and feloniously attempt to kill a human being, to wit: TASHA

BETHEL, from a premeditated design to effect the cÏäath of said person or any

human being, by shooting in the direction of TASHA BELL with a firearm, a

handgun, in violation of s. 782.04(1), s. 777.04, and s. 775.087, Florida

Statutes, . to the evil example of all others in like cases offending and

against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.

COUNT V

The Grand Jurors of the .State of Florida, duly called, impaneled and

sworn to inquire and·true presentment make in and for the body of the County

of Dade, upon their oaths, present that on or about the 12th day of November,

1993, within the county of Dade, State of Florida, NORMAN CAISON did

unlawfully and feloniously attempt to kill a human being, to wit: DARRYL

BIVINS, from a premeditated design to effect the death of said person or any

human being, by shooting i.n the direction of DARRYL BIVINS with a firearm, in

violation of s. 782.04(1), s. 777.04, and 775.087, Florida Statutes, to the

evil example of all others in like cases offending and against the peace and

dignity of the State of Florida.

2

COUNT V

sworn o 1GrandreJuarorst of the State of Florida, duly called, impaneled andrue presentment make

of Dade, upon their oath in and for the body of the County

1993, within th s, present that on or about the 12th day of November

unlawfully and f County of Dade, State of Florida, NORMAN CAISON didoniously display a firearm, while at

defendant was committin f said time and place. the

First Degree Murder g a elony, to wit: First Degree Murder and Attemptedas provided by s 782 O

Florida Statutes th �042 . 4(1), s 777.04, and. 775.087,

being in violat i e possess1on and display of said firearm as aforesaidion of S. 790.07(.2), Florida Statute.

A OCHOA

FOREPERSON OF THE GRAND JURY

B/M DOB: 10/24/54 SS#: 262-08--5929

EXHIBIT B

KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLESTATE ATTORNEY

STATE ATTORNEYELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

B. R. GRAHAM BUILDINo1350 N.'W. 12TH AVENUE

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33136-2111

f ALLAHASSEEno

TELEPHONE (305) 5474100

April 10, 2002

Secretary of StateDivision ofElections1801, The Capitol BuildingTallahassee, FL 32399-0350

Dear Sir/Madam:

Please find the attached certified copy of Termination ofAppointment for the followingAssistant State Attorney(s).

DERIC ZACCACHET ZERLIN

Thank you for your time in thisTnatter. .

Sincerely,

KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLEState Attorney

By:KATÉIERÍNE E. RODGEI SHuman Resource Assistant

Attachment

Please RecydeF:\Asatrmlt.Doc|SASoF

IN ÝÊE"CIRCUIT OYTHE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCU ND ORMIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLOPlDA 25 P 3 ) o

TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY

I, KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE, State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of

Florida, pursuant to the power and authority vested in me by Article V of-the Constitution of the

State of Florida, did appoint CIET ZERLIN,:as an Assistant State Attorney on Frida ril 27,

2001, and the said CHET ZERL]N having resigned his appointment as an Assistant orn ,

the same is hereby effective Friday, March 15, 2002. . 2

Dated Friday, March 15, 2002, at Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. .....

7KATHERINE FE ANDFl R I E- cState Attorney .

Eleventh Judicial Circuit ofFlorida . C

0372 - 1/7/02pocument5|sASoF

sTATE OF FLO NW OF�042 1HEREBY CEKHFf that tom p

edginal an dle in this sin uHARVEy RUVlN, Clerk of r u e . .

Deputy C .

g{ the DTCU .Deputy . . .ediddQTC

e andde 5 and tar cade coan

Please Recycle

IN THE· CIRCUIT COURT OF THEELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ANDFOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDAFALL TERM2005

RE: APPolNTMENTrn

Pursuant to the aùthority contained in Rule 3.140 (g), RCrP, I, KATHERINE

FERNANDEZAUNDLE, State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, do hereby.

designate the following Assistant State Attorney to sign Informations charging misdemeanors

and felonies:

Chester J. Zerlin

Dated this I2th day of January, 2006, at Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

FERNANlíEZ RUNDIState AttorneyEleventh Judicial Circuit ofFlorida

nE �042CJRCT"TCOURT OF· THE cp-¡q. 2O06RÖO4-~3-7

, Fl2VENTH JUDI L CD(CUIT .. IN AND, . DR. :Blf 24N3 Ps s 20%· 2 981 (F A... -

MIMMI-DADE. COUl4T:Yi FLDRIDA

RE: APPOlNTMENTOFASSISTANTSTATEATTORNEY

I, KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE, State Attomey of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit

Court, in and for Miami-Dade County, pursuant to the power and authority vested in me by

Article V of the Constitution of the State ofFlorida, do hereby appoint:

Chester J. Zerlin

as an Assistant State Attomey effective the 9* day of January, 2006, aïMiami-Dade County

Florida.

KATHERINE FERN EZ RU ÊEState AttomeyEleventh Judicial Circuit ofFlorida E ...

OATH OF OFFICE

I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect, and defend the

Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State

of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the

Constitution of the State; and that I will well and faithfully perform

the duties of Assistant State Attorney, on which I am now about to ;.

enter.

So help me God. . ! -

As is t State AttorneyEle th Jtidicial Circuit of Florida

, CMærrec f: 2Ge< ..» 2W 77(

Printed Name & Florida Bar Number

Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of

40063R$#VRS,�570, A.D., 9898.

Circuit Court JudgeEleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida

TRTÁY"hôtNSCRIPT·OFCOURT'S JURY INSTRUCTION

ON LESSER IlVCLUDEDOFFENSES, pp. 1637 -- 1639

3 92

1637

1 i ncluded .

2 There is no doubt the state has proven their

3 case beyond and to the exclusion of ev.ery reasonable

4 doubt. The defendant, Norman Caison, is guilty of

5 premeditated first degree murder.

6 · Thank you.

7 (Time noted, 4:15 p.m..)

8 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

9 First of all, let me thank you for all of the

10 attention that yo own us dQring this t r

11 I need .for you to pay very..close attention to the

12 instructions that I am about to give you.

13 Norman Edwin Caison3 the defendant in this

14 case, lyas f$iÛf$ccused of the crimes of first degree

15 murder, attempted first degree murder and unlawful

16 possession of a firearm during the commission of a

17 felony.

18 In considering the evidence you should consider

19 the possibility that although the evidence may not

20 convince you that the defendant committed the main

21 crimes of which he is accused, there may be evidence

22 that he committed other acts that would constitute a

23 lesser included cr ime.,

24 Therefore, i f you decide that the main

25 accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable

NATIONAL REPORTING SERVICE

393

1638

1 doubt, you will next need to.decide. if the def.endant

2 is guilty of any lesser included crime.

3 The lesser included crimes indicated in the

4 definit.ion of first. degree murder are second degree

5 murder and manslaughter.

6 . The le.sser included crimes indicated in the

7 definition of attempted fir·st degree murder are

8 attempted second degree murder, aggravated battery,

9 aggravated assault.

10 The lesser included crimes indicated in the

11 definition of unlawful possession of a firearm

12 during the commission of a felony are·carrying a

13 concealed firearm and improper exhibition of a

14 firearm.

JS . In this case Norman Edwin Caison is accused of

16 first degree murder.

27 Murder in the.first degree includes the lesser

18 crimes of murder in the second degree and

19 manslaughter, both of which are unlawful.

20 A killing that is excusable or was committed by

21 the use of justifiable .deadly force is lawful.

22 If you find J·ermaine Jackson was killed by

23 Norman Edwin Caison, you will then consider the

24 circumstances surrounding the killing and deciding

25 if the killing was murder in the first degree or was

NATIONAL REPORTING SERVICE Jg4

1639

1 murder in the second degree or manslaughter or

2 whether the killing was excusable or resulted from

3 justifiable use of deadly force.

4 Before you can find the defendant guilty of

5 first degree premeditated murder, the state must

6 prove the following three elements beyond a

7 reasonable doubt.

8 One. Jermaine Jackson is dead.

9 Two. The death was caused by the criminal act

10 o r ag òh ...

11 Th eFe was a premeditated killing of

12 Je rmaine Jackson . :..

13 Killing with premeditation .Ls. killing after

14 consciously deciding to do so.. The decision must be

15 present in the mind at the time of the killing.

16 The law does not fix the exact period of time

17 that must pass be.tween the formation of the

18 premeditated intent to kill and the killing.

19 The period of time must be long enough to allow

20 reflection by the defendant.

21 The premeditated intent to kil1 must be formed

22 before the killing

23 The question of premeditation is a question of

24 fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It

25 wi11 he sufficierit pr oof Of p/emedi taLion if the

NATIONAL REPORTING SERVICE 395

. . . . 1640

1 circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the

2 accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of

3 the existence of premeditation at the- time of the

4 killing.

5 If a perso.n has a premeditated design to kill

6 one person and in.an attempting to kill that person

7 actually kills another person, the killing is

8 premeditated.

9 Before you can find the defendant guilty of

10 second degree murder, as a lesser included offense,

11 the state must prove the following three elements

12 beyond a - reasonable doubt .

13 One. Jermaine Jackson is dead.

14 Two. The death was caused by th·e criminal act

15 or ·agency of Norman Edwin Cais-on-. '

16 Three. There was. an u·nlawful killing of

17 Jermaine Jackson by an act imminently dangerous to

18 another and evincing a deprived mind regardless of

19 human life.

20 An act is one imminently dangerous to another

21 and evinci.ng a depr;Lved mind regardless of human

- 22 life if -it'is an ·act or series of acts that a person

23 . of ordinary j.udgment--would know is reasonably-~ - -

24 certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to

25 · ·another and is done from ill will, hatred, spite- or

-NA-TIONAL. REPORT-.ING SERV-ICE ' . ...

. 1641

1 an evil.intent and is of such.a nature that the act

2 itself indicates an indifference to human life. -

3 In order to convict of second degree murder it

4 is not necessary for the. state to prove the

5 defendant had a premeditated .intent to cause death.

6 Before you can find the defendant guilty of

7 manslaughter as a lesser included offense the state

8 must prove .the following two elements beyond a

9 reasonable doubt.

10 . One. Jermaine Jackson is dead..

- 11 Two. Norman Edwin Caison intention.ally caused

. 12 the death of Jermaine Jackson, ntentiona"11g_. _'... -

.. .. 13 procured the de.ath of J'ermain·e .J.ackson, 4tie'death o ..-

14 Jer-4naine Jackson ·was caused by the culpable

15 negligence of Normañ Édwin Caison. -

16 However, the defendant cannot be guilty of

17 manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable

18 or excusable homicide, as I have previously

19 explained these terms.

20 To procure means to persuade, induce, prevail

21 upon or c.ause a person to do s.omething..

22 - I·will now define culp.able. negligence for you._

23 Each-of us-has a düty- to.-act reason¯ab-ly= toward

24 others,. If there is a violation of that. duty

25 without any cons.cious intention to harm, that

NATIONAL REPORTIÑG �540ERVICE ..l.-

1642

1 violation is ne.gligence. But culpable .negligence is

2 more than a failure to use ordinary care~ towards

3 o the.rs.

4 In order for negligence to be culpable it must

5 . be. grosè a'nd flagrant.

6 Culpable negligence is a course of conduct

7 showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the

8 safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects,

9 or such an entire want of care as to raise a

10 presumption of a conscious indifference to

11 consequences, or which shows wantonness or

12 recklessness, or a grossl.y careless disregard for

13 the safety or .welfare of the public, or such an .

14 indifference to the rights of others as is

15 - 'equi-valent-to än intentiohally violation. of such

16 rights.

17 .The negligent act or omission must have been

18 committed with -an utter di.sregard for the safety of

19 · others.

20 Culpable negligence is conscious-ly doing an act

21 _o-r followinéj a course. of conduct that the defendant

22 - . mu.st have known or_ reasonably should have _known was

2_~5 _... · l~ikely to -cause.. deatfi or g-re·at=tbodily inj ury .. .1 --..__.

�04224 In order to convict of manslaughter by

25 intentional act it is not necessary for the state ·to

- NATIONAL' REPORTING SERVI.GE

. . . . 1643

1 prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent

2 to cause death.

3 In this case Norman Edwin Caison-is accused of

4 attempted first degree murder. Attempted murder in

5 the fir�541tdegree includes the lesser crimes of

6 attempted murder in the second .degree, ·and attempted

7 voluntary manslaughter, both of which are -unlawful.

8 An attempted killing that is excusable. or was

9 committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is

lo lawful.. ... -7. - . -. .

11 If you find that.·there. was an attempted killing

12 of John Bet-hel -and/or. Davi Wills, and r Tasha

13 Bethel and/.or Darryl Bivins by Norman Edwin C.aison,

14 you'. w'^Ill then consider"the ~circumstances- surrounding

15 -the~attempted killing in deciding íf it was �042

16 attempted first degree murder or attempted second

17 degree murder or attempted voluntary mansláughter orO

18 whether the attempted killing was excusable or

19 resulted from justifiable use of deadly. force.

20 Before you can find the defendant guilty of

21 attempted .first degree premeditated murder the state .

22 must prove the following three ..elements beyond _a

-- 23 - reasonable doub-t. ~= --- .. . --- --

. 24 One. The defendant did some act intended to

25 cause the death of John ,Bethel and/or.D-avid Wills -

- NATIONQL REP'ORT.I¯ÑG SERVICE __. __

. 1644

1 and/or Tasha Bethel and/or Darryl Bivins that went

2 beyond just thinking or.talking about it.

3 Two. Defendant acted with a premeditated

.4 design to kill John Bethel and/or David Wills and/or

5 Tasha Bethel and/or Darryl B.ivins, and,

6 Three. The act would have resulted in the

7 death of John Bethel and/or David Wills and/or Tasha

8 Bethel and/or Darryl Bivins except that someone

9 prevented the defendant from killing John Bethel or

10 David Wills or Tasha Bethel or Darryl Bi.vi..as.,. or he

11 failed to do so.

12 A premeditated design to kill means th t there

13 was axons'cl.ous decision to kill. The decision must

14. be present in the- mind at the time·the act was

- 15- cominitted.

16 The law does not fix the exact period of time

17 the act was committed -- strike that. The law does

18 not·fix the exact period of time that must pass

19 between the formation of the premeditated intent to

20 kill and the act. The period of time must be long

21 . enough to allow reflection by the defendant.

22 . The premeditated intent .to 'kill m'ust.. be fo·r·med

23 _ 6efore-'-t-he- act; was committed. -.._Ihe qïTest¯i-ori cEfr --

24 premeditation is a question of fact to be determined

25 by you from the evidence. . -

- -- NAT.IQHA~L REPO'RTZNG SERVICE __

�042 1645

1 It -will be sufficient proof of premeditation if

2 the circu~mstances of the attempted killing and the

3 conduct of the accused convince you beyond a.

4 reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation

5 at the time 'of the attempted killing.

6 It is not an attempt to commit first degree

7 premeditated murder if the defendant ab.andoned the

8 .attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented

9 its commission under circumstances indicating a

10 . complete and voluntary renu.nciati.on..of his criminal

11 pur ppse.

12 :.Before you can find the defendant guilty of

13 attemp-ted f.ep ree murdèr. as a lesser included

14 offense the· state must prove the following two

15 elements beyond a.reasonab_le do-übt.

16 Norman Edwin Caison intentionally committed an

17 act which would have resulted in the death of John

18 Bethel and/or David Wills and/or Tash.a Bethel and/or

19 Darryl Bivins excep.t that someone prevented Norman

20 Edwin Caison from killing John Bethel and/or David

21 Wills and/or Tasha Bethel and/or Darryl Bivins; or

. 22 he failed t.o do so. . .__ -

23 -- - . The act was._ imm-i-nen y da-rigér us to--ano.t;he r and.

24 evincing a deprived mind regardless of human life.

25 An act is one imminently dangerous _to- another

. . . NATIONÀL REPORTING SERVICE ..

�042 1646

1 - and evincing a deprived mind r.egardless of human

2 Iife if it is an act or series of acts that a person

3 of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably

4 certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to

5 another and is done from ill will, hatred, spite or

6 an evil intent and is such -- of such a nature that

7 the act itself indicates an indifference to human

8 li fe..

9 In order.to convict of attempted second degree

10 murder it is not..nec.essar_y fo.r the state to prove

11 the defe.ndant had. a premeditated intent to cause

12 death..

13 I t is no t an a t tempt to commi t second deg ree

14 .. murde if-the defendant~abandoned. the. attempt to

15 commit thef offense or otherwise" prevented its

16 commission under circumstances. indicating a complete

17 and voluntary renunc.iation of his .criminal purpose.

18 Before you can find the defendant guilty of

19 aggravated battery as a lessor included offense the

20 state must prove the following two elements beyond

21 reasonable doubt. - The first ·element is the

22 definition of batte~ry.. - --

- . 23 Onë_.. --..I.ha t ~No rman-- E-dwtÄ C-a.i-son in te ntio.nally

24 caused bod·ily harm to John Bethel and/or David

25 Wills .

...._ ..--- NA TIONAL REPO.RTIRG SERVICE

1647

1 Two. Norman Edwin Caison, in committing the

2 battery, A, intentionally or knowingly caused great

3 bodily harm to John B.ethel and/or David Wills, and

4 B, used a deadly weapon, to wit;.a firearm.

5 A weapon is a''deadly weapon if it is threatened

6 to be used in a way likely to cause death or great

7 bodily harm.

8 Before you can find the defendant guilty of

9 aggravated -assault as a lesser included offense the

10 s tate m.u.st. p.rp.ve_ t;he following four elements beyond

11 ·. a reasonable doubt. The first three elements define

12 assault. - -.. -.

13 ' One. ^ No m tr Edwin CaisoiP"I'ntentionally and

l'4 unlawfully· threatened, either by word or act, to do

15 violence to- Tasha Bethel and/or Darryl Bivins.

16 At the time Norman Edwin Caison appeared to

17 have the ability to carry out the threat.

18 Three. The act of Norma.n Edwin Caison created

19 in the mind of Tasha Bethel and/or Darryl Bivins a

20 well-founded fea-r that the violence was about to

21 take pl-ace.

22 Andl four.. ~ The assault- was made ·with a -deadly

23 weapon3 to--w1-t-FE A --frrearm. ··· _ ..-. · -

24 A weapon is a deadly weapon if it is used or

25 ·threatened to be used in a way likely to produce

NA_T IONA L REPORTING S ERVICE ·-· -· ·_

16.48

1 death or great bodily harm.

2 It is not necessary for. the state .to prove that

3 the defendant had an intent to kill. -

4 . . Before you can find the defendant guilty of

5 posséssion of a firearm during the commission of a

6 felony .the.state must prove the following two

7 elements .beyond a reasonable doubt.

8 One. Norman Edwin Caison used a firearm.

9 Or 8: Carried a firearm which was concealed

10 ..._.....trom._the_ordinary sight of another person.

11 And two. He did so while committing or

12 attempting to commit t'he.felony of murder.,.

13 . Before you can. find the defendant guilty of

14 'carrying a concealed weapon as a lesser included

15 of.fense the state must prove the following two - -

16 e·le.ments beyond a reasonable doubt.

17 One. Norman Edwin Caison knowingly carried on

18 or about his pe.rson a firearm.

19 . Two. This firea'rm was concealed from the

20 ordinary sight of another person.

21 - A concealed weapon is legally defined as any

22 weapon .carried on- or about a person in such. a mannec

. 23 as f3 -don-c.e-a-l.. ti-ie weapon f ro-m -..the ordin~ary_. sigh't of

�04224 an ordinary person.

25 . Before you can find the defendant guilty of

__ NATIONAL REPORTING SERVICE--. - . _ .