WALTER E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA v. DCA CASE NO: 2D17-3550 L.T. CASE NO: CRC-92-02284-CFANO-D SThT OF FLORIDA, ppellee. O APPELLANT'S INITIAL BRIEF ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA Mr. Walter E. Williams / DC# 119088 Hamilton Coirectional Inst. - Annex 10650 S.W. 46 ' Street Jasper, Florida 32052
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS...4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...5 ISSUE ONE...6 WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF AND THE DENIAL OF HIS REHEARING MOTION IN THIS CASE WHERE THE PETITION CLEARLY STATED A PRIMA FACIE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF HEREIN?... 6 ARGUMENT...6 CONCLUSION...14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...15
CASES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Adams v. State, 957 So.2d 1183 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2006)... 10 Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1** DCA 1996)... 10 Beasley v. State, 971 So.2d.228, 229 (Fla. 46' DCA 2008)... 12 Brown v. State, 959 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2007)... 8 Coleman v. State, 128 So.3d 193 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2013)... 13 Dydek v. State, 400 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2'¹ª DCA 1981)...... 11 Eaton v. State, 438 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla. 1983)... 8 Eaton v. State, 908 So.2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 15' DCA 2005)... 12 Figueroa v. State, 84 So.3d 1158 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 2012)... 8 Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000)... 9 Mahaun v. State, 377 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 1979)... 8 Miller v. State, 988 So.2d 138 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2008)... 11 Noel v. State, 705 So.2d 648, 649 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1998)... 12 Quarles v. State, 56 So.3d 857 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2011)... 10 Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1981)... 8 Sherwood v. State, 734 So.2d 1050 (Fla. l³t DCA 1998)... 11 Silverstein v. State, 985 So.2d 635 (Fla. 46' DCA 2008)... 11 Smith v. Kearney, 802 So.2d 387, 389 (Fla. 46' DCA 2001)... 11 Smith v. State, 11 So.3d 473 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2009)... 6 Spagnolo v. State, 116 So.3d 599 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2013)... 11 State v. Sigler, 967 So..2d 835 (Fla. 2007)... 9, 12 Watson v. State, 410 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1982)... 12 Waugh v. State, 388 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 2 DCA 1980)... 11 Zwick v. State, 730 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 5 ' DCA 1999)... 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(4) (2017)...5, 9, 12 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(dK5)... 10 Florida Constitution, Article I, 13... 7 Section 79.01 Florida Statutes, (2017)... 5, 9, 10 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS On February 12th, 1992, the Appellant was charged by grand jury indictment with one (1) count of first degree premeditated murder in this case. On June 14th, 1994, the Appellant proceeded to trial upon the charged offense of first degree premeditated murder in this case. Whereupon, voir dire proceedings were conducted for the selection of a jury. On June 15th 994, the Appellant filed a timely motion for judgment of acquittal, which was granted by the trial judge. After the swearing in and impaneling of the jury, and jeopardy had attached. On June 16th, 1994, the Appellant in this case, was purportedly convicted by the jury of the uncharged alternative theory of first degree felony-murder. Despite the fact that the court no longer had jurisdiction after granting of the judgment of acquittal, and there being no conviction for a legally interlocking underlying felony as required by law. On August 28th, 1994, the Appellant was wrongfully sentenced to Life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory twenty-five (25) years, before being parole eligible in this case. On June 26th, 2017, Appellant exercises his guaranteed constitutional right to writ of habeas corpus in this case. As a direct result of his illegal detention herein 4
for a crime of first degree felony-murder of which he has not lawfully been convicted. (R. 1-22). On June 29th, 2017, the trial court erroneously dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus relief filed herein for lack ofjurisdiction to properly consider it as a habeas corpus and then proceeded to apply the procedural rules requirements of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, as a means of depriving the Appellant of relief clearly warranted under the laws of Florida in this case (R. 23-36). On July. 14th, 2017, Appellant filed a timely motion for rehearing, pointing out the controlling points of law, that the trial court overlooked in rendering its decision in this case (R. 36-44). On July 18th, 2017, trial court summarily denied Appellant's motion for rehearing without properly addressing the merits thereof. (R. 45). Which, has lead to instant appeal in good faith. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT That it is undisputable from the facts in the record the trial court erred in the summary dismissal of the Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in this case, contrary to the established rules of law. Under, both Section 79.01 Florida Statutes, (2017); and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(4) (2017) herein. Therefore, based upon the facts herein, that plainly shows that Appellant is entitled to immediate release as a matter of proper due process of law. Appellant 5
humbly requests this Honorable Court treat this appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. And correct an apparent manifest injustice of an illegal conviction in this case. ISSUE ONE WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF AND THE DENIAL OF HIS REHEARING MOTION IN THIS CASE WHERE THE PETITION CLEARLY STATED A PRIMA FACIE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF HEREIN? ARGUMENT The above question can only be answered in the affirmative. Based upon the facts of the instant case, and the applicable case law, as it is readily apparent that the trial court here did not address the merits of claims and improperly relied on procedural grounds to dismiss. Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus relief contrary to the established laws of proper due process herein. Just, like in Smith v. State, 11 So.3d 473 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2009); where in that court expressly held: "Appellant challenges the lower court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the trial court improperly dismissed the petition on procedural grounds without addressing the merits. We agree with Appellant and reverse." Here, appellant was charged with First Degree Premeditated Murder, in a grand jury indictment filed by the State Attorney's Office. In his petition for 6
habeas corpus, appellant challenged the jurisdiction of both the judge, state attorney, and the jury after the granting of his motion for judgment of acquittal prior to the rendering of a guilty verdict and impositioning of a sentence herein. In this case, the trial court did not reach the merits of the instant petition, as a result of erroneously colicluding that it lacked jurisdiction to treat Appellant's petition as a true writ of habeas corpus. Because the Appellant is not in the territorial jurisdiction of Pinellas County, Florida. And then the trial court improperly proceeded to circumvent the constitutional laws governing proper due process in connections. with habeas corpus proceedings. By applying the applications of procedural Rule 3.850 to the case in chief. Here, it is undeniable that trial court's claim of lack of jurisdiction to treat Appellant's petition as a habeas corpus is clearly without merits. And should be proper reversed in light of the Florida Constitution, Article I, 13, which expressly provides: "The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, free and without costs. It.shall be returnable without delay, and shall never be suspended unless, in case of rebellion, invasion, or suspension is essential to the public safety." As the Florida Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 1.630(d)(4) (2017), expressly mandates the following: "If the complaint shows a prima facie case for relief, the court shall issue a writ of habeas corpus." Such, as here where Appellant is undisputably being unlawfully detained in custody for what is commonly known as 7
a true legally inconsistent verdict. As a direct result of Appellant improperly being convicted for the homicide, but not for the legally interlocking underlying felony, which happens to be an essential element of the felony-murder prosecution in this case. Because the underlying felony is a part of the crime charged, without the underlying felony the charge cannot stand. See Eaton v. State, 438 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla. 1983); Redondo v. State, 403 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1981); Mahaun v. State, 377 So.2d 1158 (Fla.. 1979) ("Verdict of guilty as to felony-murder set aside where jury failed to find defendant guilty of the underlying felony."); Brown v. State, 959 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2007). The law on this point is clear, in any felony-murder conviction the element of causation, i.e. that the homicide was committed in the perpetration of the felony, must be established; stated another way, the State must prove that there was no break in the.chain of circumstances beginning with the felony and ending with the murder. Which, clearly has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the instant case, where there is no jury verdict of guilty upon the legally interlocking underlying felony as required by proper due process of law herein. A fact that has been apparently overlooked by both the postconviction court and this Honorable Court for the past twenty-three (23) years in this case. Just, like in Figueroa v. State, 84 So.3d 1158 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 2012); as in the present case. 8
Appellant is serving a life sentence for a crime of first degree felony-murder, he has not been convicted of having committed by the jury and a conviction wrongfully entered in this case. See State v. Sigler, 967 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2007) ("An illegal conviction falls within the concept of manifest injustice."). When allegations in a postconviction proceedings are not conclusively rebutted by the record, the appellate court must accept them as true. Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000). Such, as in this case, where it is readily apparent from the cold record herein. None of Appellant's claims have been conclusively rebutted by the instant record, but to the contrary the cold record supports Appellant's position that his conviction is illegal in this case, as a matter of law. Thereby, entitling Appellant to relief in the form of writ of habeas corpus. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(4) (2017h and Florida Statutes, Section 79.01 (2017); which expressly provides: "When any person detained in custody, whether charged with a criminal offense or not applies to any circuit judge for a writ of habeas corpus and shows by affidavit or evidence probable cause to believe that he or she is detained without lawful authority, the judge to whom such application is made shall grant the writ forthwith against the person in whose custody the applicant is detained." (In relevant part.) 9
Habeas corpus will lie to prevent a manifest injustice, even if the error is one that could have been correct by filing a postconviction motion. Adams v. State, 957 So.2d 1183 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2006). Such, as in this case, where it is undisputable the Appellant is being held without lawful authority, under what is commonly known as a true legally inconsistent verdict for a crime of first degree felony-murder herein. As results of there being no finding of guilt for the legally interlocking underlying felony, as required by law. Therefore, the trial court had no discretion but to issue the writ of habeas corpus in this case. In Quarles v. State, 56 So.3d 857 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2011); the First District Court of Appeal expressly held: "As explained in Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1" DCA 1996), the rules of procedure applicable to petitions for the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus are set out in chapter 79, Florida Statutes, and Rule 1.630, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. If the complaint states prima facie grounds for relief, the trial court must issue the writ, requiring a response from the detaining authority. 79.01, Fla. Stat., Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(5)." In order to state a prima facie case for writ of habeas corpus, the complaint must allege: 1) that the petitioner is currently detained in custody; and show 2) "by affidavit or evidence probable cause to believe that he or she is detained without lawful authority." 79.01, Fla. Stat. See also Smith v. Kearney, 802 So.2d 387, 10
389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("To show a prima facie entitlement to habeas relief, the petitioner must show that he is 'unlawfully deprived' of his liberty and is illegally detained against his will." Such, as in the present case, where it is undeniable from the facts in this cold record that Appellant was acquitted of first degree premeditated murder by the judge, and the jury effectively acquitted him of first-degree felony murder when the jury failed to find him guilty as charged of the non-existent legally interlocking underlying felony in this case. See Miller v. State, 988 So.2d 138 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2008); wherein the First District Court of Appeal, expressly held: "Error is fundamental in nature where manifest injustice would otherwise occur; manifest injustice includes convicting defendant for offense for which he could not have been convicted. see also, Silversteiri v. State, 985 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Sherwood v. State, 734 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 13' DCA 1998); Dydek v. State, 400 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2"d DCA 1981); Waugh v. State, 388 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 2"d. DCA 1980)." In this case, just as in Spagnolo v. State, 116 So.3d 599 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2013); the Appellant is entitled to have the charge against him proved substantially as alleged in the indictment and cannot be prosecuted'for one crime and convicted and sentenced for another, though the crimes are of the same general character or 11
carry the same penalty. Zwick v. State, 730 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (emphasis added). "As a rule, 'where an offense can be committed in more than one way, the trial court commits fundamental error when it instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the indictment or information' and the jury returns a general verdict of guilty without specifying the basis for the conviction " Beasley v. State, 971 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Eaton v. State, 908 So.2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1" DCA 2005) "[A] conviction for third degree felony murder requires an underlying felony and a jury determination of the existence of such a felony." State v. Sigler, 967 So.2d 835, 844 (Fla. 2007). The law in connection with a conviction for first degree felony murder is clear, if the appellant as in this case is acquitted of the underlying felony, the appellant cannot be convicted of the first degree felony murder. See Noel v. State, 705 So.2d 648, 649 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1998). A fact that both the postconviction court and the appellate court has repetitiously overlooked in this case. Therefore, based upon the facts on the face of the cold record in the present case. Appellant's conviction and sentence are illegal as a matter of proper due process of law. As the First District Couit of Appeals in Watson v. State, 410 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1982); in the relevant part made its opinion quite clear in regards to judgments of acquittal rendered by the trial judge, when the court stated: 12
"Once a defendant obtains an acquittal after jeopardy attaches, the double jeopardy clause bars retrial. We believe that in this sense, re-trial must be construed to mean further proceedings which would be devoted to the resolution of factual issues concerning the elements of the offense charged." Such, as the present case, where once trial judge acquitted Appellant of the crime charged, the trial was officially terminated for double jeopardy purposes in this case. Thus, the instant conviction and sentence constitutes an apparent manifest injustice. Because the Appellant is serving a life sentence for a crime he has not lawfully been convicted of having committed in this case, as a matter of law. See Coleman v. State, 128 So.3d 193 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2013) ("We conclude that manifest injustice would result if relief were not granted in this case.") 13
CONCLUSION Appellant respectfully submits that based upon the facts on the face of the cold record, this Honorable Court would be hard pressed not to conclude that the circumstances of this case present the uncommon and extraordinary circumstances, constituting manifest injustice. Where, the present conviction and sentence is illegal and a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy herein, warranting reversal and remanding with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus in this case. And discharge Appellant. Respectfully Submitted, Walter E. Williams / DC# 119088 Appellant / Pro Se Hamilton Correctional Inst. - Annex 10650 S.W. 46 ' Street Jasper, Florida 32052 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the forgoing Appellant's Initial Brief has been placed in the hands of Hamilton Correctional Institution Annex officials for n7ailing, via U.S. mail, to: Attorney General Concourse Center 4 3507 E. Frontage Road, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33607-7013 Mr. Kenneth S. Steely General Counsel 501 S. Calhoun St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Clerk of Court P.O. Box 327 Lakeland, FL. 33802-0327 On this day of 060, 2017. Walter E. Williams / DC# 119088 Appellant / Pro Se Hamilton Correctional Inst. - Annex 10650 S.W. 46 ' Street Jasper, Florida 32052 15