Darius L. Grayson v. State
212 So. 3d 481
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victims discovered a burglary of a dwelling around 2:30 a.m.; multiple items (keys, laptop, iPads, Kindle, gaming systems, Prada purse, backpack) were missing.
- Police responded within minutes, canvassed the neighborhood, and stationed officers at a nearby closed ball field adjacent to woods behind the victims' neighborhood.
- Officers observed Grayson in the wood line about 150 yards away; low light prevented seeing items he carried. When officers identified themselves, Grayson fled a short distance and got stuck in brush.
- Police recovered stolen property on the ground where Grayson had been standing; no other persons were found in the area and no useful fingerprints/DNA were recovered from the house or items.
- Grayson was arrested, gave a videotaped statement admitting he cut through the woods to avoid police and had been in yards/porches, denied stealing; he later was convicted at trial of burglary and third-degree grand theft in one case and pleaded guilty to related charges in a second case while reserving suppression appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grayson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of seizure / motion to suppress | Officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion based on time, proximity to recent burglary, being alone in closed ball field at night, and unprovoked flight | Stop was an unjustified seizure — police had only a hunch; presence in woods and flight insufficient | Denied; totality of circumstances (time, location, recent burglary, flight, no other people) supported reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop |
| Denial of JOA (sufficiency of evidence for burglary/grand theft) | Evidence (officers, victims, recovered property, recorded statement) allowed reasonable inferences supporting submission to jury | Insufficient evidence to convict; JOA should have been granted | Denied; record contained sufficient evidence to send to jury |
| Value element of third-degree grand theft | Victim testimony and item descriptions supported value > $300 | State failed to prove value exceeded $300; counsel ineffective for not moving JOA on value | Denied; evidence sufficient to permit jury finding value > $300 and ineffectiveness not obvious on record |
| Claim of ineffective assistance re: JOA on value | Motion would have failed; no prejudice | Counsel should have moved; conviction reduced to petit theft if successful | Denied on merits; any collateral claim best raised in 3.850 but appellate record shows no clear ineffectiveness or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight in high-crime area can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established standard for investigatory stops)
- Pritchard v. State, 987 So. 2d 204 (review standards for suppression findings)
- Parker v. State, 18 So. 3d 555 (totality of circumstances — time, emptiness, recent nearby crime — can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Huffman v. State, 937 So. 2d 202 (factors for assessing reasonable suspicion)
- Sinclair v. State, 816 So. 2d 149 (flight and change of direction as factors supporting investigatory stop)
- V.L. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1140 (flight supports resisting arrest charge when stop was supported by reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Odom, 56 So. 3d 46 (standard for judgment of acquittal — defendant admits evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to State)
- Gordon v. State, 126 So. 3d 292 (general rule that ineffective-assistance claims are not resolved on direct appeal)
- Larry v. State, 61 So. 3d 1205 (ineffective assistance may be reviewed on appeal if obvious on face of record)