Jonathan Charles v. State of Florida
253 So. 3d 1230
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Appellant Jonathan Charles was charged with burglary and second-degree felony murder after Tyrone Ward was shot and killed during a residential break-in.
- Eyewitnesses saw two men force entry; one intruder was shot inside the apartment and the other fled; only two intruders were observed and both participated in breaking down the front door.
- Police recovered a black bag in the foyer containing a gun, duct tape, two cell phones, and Ward’s identification; residents said the bag/gun were not theirs.
- Cell‑phone records and texts: Ward texted about a “lick” and asked whether Charles had the “stick” (gun); Charles’ phone location matched the apartment, then the red SUV with blood, a Walmart, and the address where he was later arrested; Charles was treated for a shoulder injury.
- Jury convicted Charles of burglary and second‑degree felony murder but found he was not in actual possession of a firearm; court sentenced him to concurrent 35‑year terms.
- On appeal Charles argued the circumstantial evidence did not rebut his hypothesis that he merely gave Ward a ride; the court reviewed for fundamental error (claim unpreserved) and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was insufficient under the special circumstantial‑evidence standard | Charles: evidence merely places him at scene; could have only given Ward a ride; special standard requires ruling for acquittal | State: circumstantial evidence showed participation (two intruders, texts about a gun, phone locations), inconsistent with ride theory | Court: Charles failed to preserve special‑circumstantial standard; even if applied, evidence would rebut his hypothesis — affirmed |
| Whether the special circumstantial standard was triggered (preservation) | Charles: special standard should apply because proof was circumstantial | State: counsel’s boilerplate JOA conceded State had evidence and only challenged firearm possession, so special standard not preserved | Court: Not preserved; review limited to fundamental‑error standard |
| Whether the insufficiency, if unpreserved, rises to fundamental error (i.e., State failed to prove any crime) | Charles: convictions are fundamental error because evidence didn’t prove he participated in burglary/murder | State: eyewitness and forensic/cell‑phone evidence proved he was one of the two intruders and participated | Court: No fundamental error — sufficient evidence he committed the charged crimes |
Key Cases Cited
- Croom v. State, 36 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (standard of review for unpreserved fundamental‑error sufficiency claims)
- State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989) (special circumstantial‑evidence standard described)
- State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976) (State need only introduce evidence inconsistent with defendant’s theory)
- Newsome v. State, 199 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (failure to preserve circumstantial‑evidence claim where JOA was boilerplate)
- Monroe v. State, 191 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2016) (insufficient evidence constitutes fundamental error only if State failed to prove defendant committed any crime)
- Garcia v. State, 899 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (mere presence or knowledge insufficient to prove participation)