EDGAR PIMENTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed Edgar Pimentel's conviction for second degree murder as a youthful offender and his sentencing as an adult. The court held that because the defendant's own testimony established he shot the victim accidentally rather than in self-defense, no jury instruction on self-defense was required, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
The court held that no self-defense instruction was required because the defendant's own testimony precluded such a defense, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the second degree murder conviction, and the trial court's sentencing decision satisfied statutory requirements because the requisite findings and analysis appeared in the trial transcript.
[1] A jury instruction on self-defense is not required when the defendant's own testimony establishes the shooting was accidental.
[2] Evidence is legally sufficient to establish second-degree murder when it supports the elements of the crime.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the defendant's own testimony that he shot the victim accidentally and not to protect himself precluded the necessity of any instruction on self defense”
Establishes the court's holding that self-defense instructions are not required when defendant's testimony establishes facts inconsistent with that defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdgar Pimentel was convicted of second degree murder as a youthful offender. During trial, the defendant testified that he shot the victim accidentall…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
We affirm the defendant’s conviction of second degree murder as a youthful offender upon a holding that: (a) the defendant's own testimony that he shot the victim accidentally and not to protect himself precluded the necessity of any instruction on self defense. See generally Pearson v. State, 221 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) (jury instruction on entrapment is not required where defendant denies having committed the alleged crime); and (b) the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the crime of second degree murder. The defendant also challenges his sentence on the basis that the trial court failed to reduce to writing its decision that the defendant be sentenced as an adult. While it is true that Section 39.111(6)(d) requires as much, we find that where the transcript which is part of the record contains the requisite findings, the necessity of a writing has been satisfied.1 See Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1976) (aggravating and mitigating circumstances justifying death penalty); McGriff v. State, 417 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (imposing one year minimum mandatory sentence); McClain v. State, 356 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (habitual offender); Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (waiver of speedy trial rule).
The cases relied upon by the defendant, Rhoden v. State, 421 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), Proctor v. State, 373 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)2 are distinguishable in that the record in those cases failed to contain an indication that the requisite criteria had been considered.3
Upon the state’s suggestion in McGriff, supra, after affirming the sentence, we remanded to the trial judge to reduce his findings to writing. In the present case, no such suggestion has been made by the state, and we find that procedure to be unnecessary. Thompson, supra; Eastwood, supra. Accordingly, we affirm in all respects.
. There is no contention raised, nor could there be, that the record does not contain the requisite findings and reasons. The trial court systematically considered each criterion and analyzed it in light of the facts of this case to reach its conclusion that the defendant should be sentenced as an adult.
. We would also add to that list Sawyer v. State, 421 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) and Bunch v. State, 399 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
. Even if this distinction did not exist, we would reach today’s conclusion based on the supreme court opinion in Thompson v. State, supra.
BASKIN, Judge
(dissenting).
The evidence presented at trial failed to establish that Pimentel acted with a depraved mind regardless of human life, an essential element of second degree murder. Ramsey v. State, 114 Fla. 766, 154 So. 855 (1934); Martinez v. State, 360 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Raneri v. State, 255 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). At most, the state established that appellant’s acts constituted culpable negligence. McCray v. State, 350 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). I would, therefore, reduce the conviction to manslaughter.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1985). A transcript which is made part of the appellate record, as in the present case,3 satisfies § 39.111(7)(d), if it contains the requisite findings of fact and reasons for the decision to impose adult sanctions. Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. den., 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984); Cooper v. State, 465 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We would conclude, however, that the transcript in the present case does not reflect that the court fully considered all six criteria set…
-
Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…. State, 410 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1982). A defendant’s assertion that his injury of another was accidental will generally preclude an instruction on self defense or defense of another. See Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984). This is so because these defenses involve an admission and avoidance. Normally, a claim that injuries were inflicted accidentally will be so inconsistent with a claim of self defense or def…
-
Tucker v. State, 464 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…reasons are articulated in the record, if the aggravation is otherwise valid, the trial court will be affirmed. See and compare Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The last error urged for reversal is an erroneous calculation in the addition of the points to be charged against the appellant for purposes of considering the minimum-maximum sentence to be accorded, and thereby having an erro…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Ramsey v. State, 114 Fla. 766 (Fla. 1934)
- Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1976)
- Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Johnson v. State, 371 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- McCLAIN v. State, 356 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Martinez v. State, 360 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- O'Neal Henry Pearson v. State, 221 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Proctor v. State, 373 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Learnhart Rhoden v. State, 421 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- McGRIFF v. State, 417 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)