Ahmad R. Milton v. State of Florida
161 So. 3d 1245
| Fla. | 2014Background
- In April 2006 Ahmad Milton fired multiple shots into a crowd; charged with second‑degree murder, three counts of attempted felony murder (each predicated on attempted second‑degree murder), and shooting into a dwelling.
- The State alleged the same individuals were victims of both the attempted felony murder counts and the underlying attempted second‑degree murder counts; it identified Milton’s discharge of a firearm as the “intentional act” not an essential element of the underlying felonies.
- The jury acquitted Milton of second‑degree murder but convicted him on three attempted felony murder counts and on shooting into a dwelling; he received concurrent life sentences (with mandatory minimums) for the attempted felony murder convictions.
- The Third District affirmed the attempted felony murder convictions; the Fourth District in Tucker had vacated attempted felony murder convictions where attempted murder was the predicate felony. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that where attempted murder is the predicate felony and the same victims are at issue, discharging a firearm that is an essential element of the underlying attempted murder cannot also satisfy the separate “intentional act that is not an essential element” requirement for attempted felony murder; Milton’s attempted felony murder convictions were vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial on attempted second‑degree murder.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Milton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharging a firearm can satisfy the "intentional act" element of attempted felony murder when the predicate felony is attempted murder and the same victims are involved | The multiple shots mean only the first shot completed the attempted murder; subsequent shots are separate intentional acts and can satisfy the attempted felony murder element | The firearm discharge that satisfies attempted murder is an essential element of that underlying felony and therefore cannot also satisfy the separate intentional‑act element of attempted felony murder | Court: No — where attempted murder is the predicate and the same victims are involved, the firearm discharge is an essential element of the underlying attempted murder and cannot also serve as the distinct intentional act required by § 782.051(1); vacated convictions |
| Whether the trial court’s jury instructions were fundamentally erroneous | (implicit) Instructions were adequate to allow conviction of attempted felony murder | The trial court misstated elements: it added an element of attempted second‑degree murder into the attempted felony murder instruction and instructed on second‑degree murder (not attempted second‑degree murder), confusing the jury on essential elements | Court: Instructions were fundamentally erroneous; error went to core elements and requires a new trial on attempted second‑degree murder |
| Whether remaining claims (defective amended information; double jeopardy with shooting into a dwelling) require relief | N/A (addressed below but not necessary after vacatur) | N/A | Court: Declined to address as moot in light of vacatur and remand for retrial on underlying felony |
Key Cases Cited
- Amlotte v. State, 456 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1984) (discussed common‑law attempted felony murder history)
- State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1995) (receded from recognizing common‑law attempted felony murder)
- Coicou v. State, 39 So.3d 237 (Fla. 2010) (discussed legislative response and elements of attempted second‑degree murder)
- Tucker v. State, 857 So.2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (vacated attempted felony murder convictions where attempted murder was the predicate and the same act/victim was involved)
- Brinson v. State, 18 So.3d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (distinguished; involved felony murder/double jeopardy context)
- Battle v. State, 911 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2005) (standard for fundamental jury‑instruction error)
- Delva v. State, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (jury‑instruction error standard)
- Garzon v. State, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2008) (explaining when instruction error reaches fundamental‑error level)
- Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966) (noting need to distinguish attempted and completed offense instructions)