Daugherty v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14868
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Thomas Daugherty and co-defendant Brian Hooks were tried together for second-degree murder and two counts of attempted second-degree murder stemming from a violent spree against three homeless men, one of whom died.
- Daugherty amended his motion for rehearing challenging jury instructions on manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses.
- He challenged the denial of a motion to sever the murder counts from the attempted murder counts.
- He challenged the use of the phrase “and/or” between defendants’ names in the jury instructions, and sought a change of venue due to pre-trial publicity.
- The court affirmed most convictions but reversed for sentencing to allow a new hearing in light of Miller v. Alabama, applying the juvenile jurisprudence to require individualized consideration.
- The co-defendant Hooks received a thirty-year sentence, and the opinion discusses juveniles’ sentencing standards under Roper and Graham in the Miller framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were manslaughter instructions fundamental error? | Daugherty argues the manslaughter instruction was fundamental error. | Daugherty argues error in the lesser included offense instructions.</ | Not fundamental error; harmless error analysis applies. |
| Was the attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction fundamental error? | Daugherty contends error in this instruction. | State contends proper instruction given; conflict certification noted. | Not fundamental error; harmless under controlling precedent. |
| Did the trial court abuse in denying severance or change of venue due to pre-trial publicity? | Daugherty asserts severance and venue issues affected fairness. | Hooks decision controls affirmance on venue denial due to joint trial. | Change of venue denial affirmed; severance issue not pursued as dispositive. |
| Is life-without-parole sentencing for a juvenile permissible after Miller v. Alabama and must there be individualized consideration? | Daugherty asserts Miller requires individualized review of youth factors before life without parole. | Court had discretion; Miller does not categorically preclude life without parole where age is considered. | Remanded for new sentencing hearing to apply Miller’s individualized approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (requires individualized sentencing for juveniles in homicide cases)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (children are constitutionally different for purposes of sentencing)
- Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010) (prohibits life without parole for juveniles in non-homicide cases)
- Pena v. State, 901 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2005) (harmless error standard for misinstruction on lesser included offenses)
- Echols v. State, 484 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1985) (manslaughter as a lesser included offense two steps removed from murder)
- Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (standard attempted manslaughter instruction not fundamental error)
- Singh v. State, 36 So.3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (standard manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction not fundamental error)