JULIO AUGUSTINE, 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.
Julio Augustine was convicted of home invasion robbery with a firearm and armed false imprisonment and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed on the ground that the prosecutor's cumulative improper closing arguments constituted fundamental error requiring reversal, but the court affirmed because the errors did not render the verdict invalid.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that although the prosecutor made several improper arguments during closing (appealing to sympathy, suggesting an acquittal would be unjust, inviting verdict based on subjective beliefs rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and mischaracterizing evidence), these errors did not constitute fundamental error because a guilty verdict could have been obtained absent the improper arguments.
[1] A prosecutor's closing argument may not encourage the jury to render a verdict based on sympathy for the victim.
[2] It is improper for an attorney to give a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause during closing argument.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Fundamental error in closing argument is error that 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.”
Establishes the legal standard for fundamental error in closing argument that Augustine must satisfy on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulio Augustine was convicted of home invasion robbery with a firearm and armed false imprisonment. He received a sentence of life in prison as a pris…
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 Home Invasion Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
Julio Augustine was convicted of home invasion robbery with a firearm and armed false imprisonment. He received a sentence of life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender for the home invasion robbery and a sentence of thirty years in prison as a habitual violent felon for the false imprisonment. On appeal he raises five issues, only one of which merits discussion. Augustine claims that the cumulative effect of numerous improper arguments made by *941the prosecutor during closing argument constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal.
The transcript of the state’s closing argument reads like a primer for prosecutors entitled, “What Not to Say During Closing Argument.” Indeed, the prosecutor encouraged the jury to render a verdict based on its sympathy for the victim. See Wicklow v. State, 48 So.3d 85, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citations omitted) (finding that prosecutor’s comment, “[a]s is usually the case, the victim is on trial for something,” was an improper appeal “to the jury for sympathy for the victim”); Johns v. State, 832 So.2d 959, 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (finding prosecutor’s request to jury that it show sympathy for the victim was “clearly improper”). The prosecutor argued that an acquittal would be “unjust.” See Servís v. State, 855 So.2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“It is improper for an attorney to give a personal opinion as to the justness of the cause_”). The prosecutor invited the jury to return a guilty verdict based on what the jurors believed the “truth” was. See Northard v. State, 675 So.2d 652, 652-53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (finding that prosecutor’s argument improperly invited jury to find defendant guilty based on a determination of the “truth” rather than a finding that the state established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). The prosecutor suggested the jury could find Augustine carried a firearm during commission of the offense based on the victim’s belief that Augustine carried a firearm. See Dicks v. State, 75 So.3d 857, 859-60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (recognizing that prosecutor erred in giving an incorrect interpretation of the law during closing argument); Butler v. State, 602 So.2d 1303, 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (noting the state may not prove that defendant carried a firearm during a robbery “by presenting evidence of nothing more than the victim’s subjective belief that the defendant possessed a ‘firearm’ ”).
Likewise, the transcript of the defense counsel’s closing argument reads like a primer for defense attorneys entitled, “What You Must Say During Closing Argument.” Any one of the improper arguments here may have warranted reversal if preserved. But because defense counsel failed to object to the arguments,1 Augustine has no choice but to resort to a fundamental error argument on appeal.
“Fundamental error in closing argument is error that 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.” Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 322, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted). See also Bell v. State, 108 So.3d 639, 650 (Fla.2013) (finding cumulative effect of prosecutor’s improper comments “did not affect [defendant’s] trial such that a guilty verdict could not have been obtained in their absence”). Although the state’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, we cannot say that a conviction could not have been obtained absent the prosecutor’s improper arguments. Consequently, we affirm.
Affirmed.
MAY, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Talley v. State, 260 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Sampson v. State, 213 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…hat a conviction could not have been obtained in the absence of these errors. See Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2013); Doorbal v. State, 837 So. 2d 940, 957 (Fla. 2003); Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 1985); Augustine v. State, 143 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Nevertheless, we set forth in greater detail two arguments complained of, in the hope that the discussion which follows can provide future guidance to attorneys. GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENT [PROSECUTOR]: Take this journey with me pl…
-
Denton Robinson v. State, 211 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…al impermissible comments during closing. In fact, as in a recent case before this Court, “[t]he transcript of the state’s closing argument reads like a primer for prosecutors entitled, What Not to Say During Closing Argument.’ ” Augustine v. State, 143 So. 3d 940, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). First, the State’s prosecutor inflamed the minds and passions of the jurors, attempting to play to their emotions. See Cochran v. State, 711 So. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that the prosecutor committed f…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2013)
- Butler v. State, 602 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Servis v. State, 855 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Northard v. State, 675 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Johns v. State, 832 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Hall v. State, 92 So. 3d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Wells v. Haldeos, 48 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Dicks v. State, 75 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)