ALPHONSO LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Alphonso Lewis appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request a jury instruction on independent acts of codefendants as a defense to felony murder. The court reverses and remands, finding that Lewis stated sufficient facts to merit an evidentiary hearing on whether he was entitled to such an instruction.
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instructions. Lewis's post-conviction motion sets forth sufficient facts demonstrating entitlement to an instruction that the jury could not find him guilty of felony murder if the homicide resulted from the independent acts of his codefendants.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on their theory of defense if there is any evidence to support it.
[2] Under the felony murder rule, a defendant may not be found guilty of murder if the homicide was the result of the independent acts of codefendants.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is well established that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instructions.”
Establishes the legal standard for when jury instructions on a defendant's defense theory must be given
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis was convicted of second-degree murder under the felony murder rule on October 17, 1985. According to his post-conviction motion, Lewis was attem…
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 Felony Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Alphonso Lewis, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, 3.850. Appellant’s motion includes several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, one of which we feel merits discussion.
On October 17, 1985, appellant was found guilty on one count of second degree murder under the felony murder rule. Taking as true the facts stated in the motion, appellant was attempting to purchase an automobile battery from the victim, and was about to do so while some friends waited outside the victim’s residence. Although appellant admits that his friends/codefendants had discussed stealing the battery, appellant denies agreeing to such a scheme. Before completing the purchase, one of appellant’s friends entered the premises, the victim became alarmed, drew a gun attempting to shoot appellant, appellant and victim struggled, the gun discharged, and appellant fled the scene, leaving the others behind. At trial, it was established that the victim was severely beaten, and died as the result of bullet wounds to the heart, chest and abdomen, with massive internal bleeding.
In his post-conviction motion, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective in failing to request a jury instruction on the law applicable to his theory of defense — that the homicide was the result of the independent acts of the codefendants. Appellant argues that he was entitled to the instruction that the jury could not find him guilty of murder, even under the felony murder rule, if the jury found that the murder was the result of the independent acts of the codefendants.
It is well established that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instructions. Hansbrough v. State, 509 So. 2d 1081, 1085 (Fla.1987); Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726, 732 (Fla.1982); Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla.1984); Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So. 2d 798 (1945). On its face, appellant’s motion sets forth sufficient facts to demonstrate an entitlement to an instruction that the jury could not find appellant guilty of felony murder if it found that the homicide was the result of the independent acts of the codefendants. See e.g., Bryant v. State. Accordingly, we instruct the trial court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which show conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
SHIVERS, ZEHMER and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RAY v. State, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)…tion is not necessary where there is no evidence to support it. There is no evidence to warrant the giving of such a charge in this case. See Hansbrough v. State, 509 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1987); Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1982); Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). [*609] The “independent act” doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofel-on, “which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design o…
-
Jonard Edmund Banks v. State, 314 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…propriate relief.”); see also Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028, 1033 (Fla. 1999). Since there was no evidentiary hearing, we assume that the facts raised in Banks’s postconviction motion are true unless the record refutes them. See Lewis v. State, 591 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). To prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Banks must show that his counsel’s representation was outside of the range of reasonable professional assistance and that, but for his counsel’s conduct, the tria…
Authorities Cited
- Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545 (Fla. 1945)
- THE Florida BAR v. Merwin, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1982)
- Hansbrough v. State, 509 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1987)
- Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Aronson, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)