MICHAEL SPICER, 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.
The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel was apparent on the face of the record due to counsel's erroneous argument and proposed jury instruction shifting the burden of proof for self-defense to the defendant.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be raised on direct appeal only if the record on its face demonstrates ineffectiveness.
[2] Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defen…
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of aggravated battery, with his sole defense being self-defense. His counsel argued to the jury that it was the defendant'…
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 Burden Of Proof In Self-Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Spicer appeals from his aggravated battery conviction and fifteen-year prison sentence entered following a jury’s verdict of guilty on the charge. Finding ineffective assistance of counsel apparent on the face of the record, we reverse for a new trial. See, e.g., Bruno v. State, 807 So.2d 55, 63 n. 14 (Fla.2001) (“A claim of ineffectiveness can properly be raised on direct appeal only if the record on its face demonstrates ineffectiveness.”).
Spicer’s sole defense at trial was self-defense. He took the stand himself to testify that he punched the victim only in self-defense after the victim attacked him. Spicer’s counsel also called another eyewitness, Spicer’s girlfriend, who corroborated this defense. The law is clear that raising self-defense does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Rather, “[o]nce a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.” Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Fowler v. State, 921 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)); see also Brown v. State, 454 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (‘While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (citations omitted).
Spicer’s counsel was obviously unaware of the law on this point, and repeatedly explained to the jury in his closing argument that it was Spicer’s burden to prove self-defense. Compounding this mistake, Spicer’s lawyer proposed an old standard jury instruction which also erroneously stated that self-defense had to be “proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” This was the instruction read to the jury.1
*708Because we can conceive of no possible strategy on this record that could justify Spicer’s lawyer shifting the burden of proof to his client as to the only real issue at trial, we find this to be one of those rare cases where counsel’s deficient performance is clear from the face of the record on direct appeal. We also find prejudice apparent on the face of the record. To show prejudice in this context, a defendant “need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Rather, prejudice is demonstrated where there is a “reasonable probability” that counsel’s deficient performance altered the outcome of the trial. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. A court’s concern should be “whether the result of a particular proceeding is unreliable because of a breakdown in the adversarial process.” Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102, 1108-09 (Fla.1984). We have carefully reviewed this record. Clearly, the State presented evidence from which a jury could have rejected the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this was Spicer’s only defense at trial. And, the defense was supported by testimony that, if believed, could have been sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors properly instructed on the law. Therefore, we find that counsel’s burden-shifting error caused a breakdown in the adversary process sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome of this trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J., and JACOBUS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…CA 2013) (holding that if the error in the jury instruction constituted fundamental error, the defendant [Pickett] affirmatively agreed to the instruction and “[i]n doing so, Pickett waived his right to raise this issue on appeal”); Spicer v. State, 22 So. 3d 706, 707 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“Because it was Spicer’s attorney who affirmatively requested the instruction in this case, however, we have not addressed the issue using a fundamental error analysis.”); Caldwell v. State, 920 So. 2d 727, 732 (Fla. 5…
-
Marla Diane Swearingen v. State, 91 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ontrolled substance; concluding on direct appeal that the ineffectiveness of defense counsel's representation was obvious from the record, the prejudice caused thereby was indisputable, and a tactical explanation was inconceivable); Spicer v. State, 22 So. 3d 706, 707-08 (Fla. 5th [*886] DCA 2009) (reversing conviction for aggravated battery on direct appeal; finding that ineffectiveness was apparent on the face of the record, that prejudice was indisputable, and that there was no tactical explanation for er…
-
C.V. Alexander, Jr. v. Quail Pointe II Condo., 170 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…hat he has invited the trial court to make.” Volusia Cnty. v. Niles, 445 So. 2d 1043, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). This doctrine holds trae whether the error was invited solely by appellant’s counsel being unaware of the governing law, Spicer v. State, 22 So. 3d 706, 708 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), or jointly by appellant and his opponent, Weber v. State, 602 So. 2d 1316, 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). “The fault should not be laid upon the trial judge; rather, it must be placed upon [the attorneys] who led the court…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1984)
- Bruno v. State, 807 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2001)
- Emory Jack Brown, Jr. v. State, 454 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Fowler v. State, 921 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Jewell D. Weber v. State, 602 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Caldwell v. State, 920 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases (2006-3), 947 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 2007)