KERVEN CHARLES v. STATE OF FLORIDA
223 So. 3d 318
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 4, 2013 defendant Kerven Charles committed a series of offenses within about 30 minutes in the same neighborhood: an armed threat to Dieunata Francois and her 4-year-old (Francois incident), an armed robbery/assault at the Spector home where a machete was used and a wallet stolen (Spector incident), and later he was found hiding in Ismith Jean’s home where police apprehended him and recovered a black duffle bag matching the bag seen in the other incidents.
- Charges in a single information included robbery with a weapon, false imprisonment of a child with a weapon, burglary with assault while armed, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and petit theft; an additional burglary (Jean) was charged as Count VIII and was severed pretrial.
- Trial court denied defendant’s motion to sever Counts I–III (Francois incident) from Counts IV–VII (Spector incident), finding the events constituted a single crime spree connected by time, place, and modus operandi.
- The trial court admitted evidence relating to the severed Jean burglary (Count VIII)—including the duffle bag contents and defendant hiding in Jean’s home—as evidence of flight/concealment and because the evidence was inextricably intertwined with the charged incidents.
- Multiple competency evaluations occurred; at a July 31, 2014 hearing the court stated it had reviewed Dr. Brannon’s report finding defendant competent and made an oral independent competency finding, but did not enter a written competency order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Charles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts I–III should be severed from Counts IV–VII | Joinder proper because crimes were connected by time, location, nature and manner (crime spree) | Incidents were unrelated random acts by a possibly mentally ill person; severance needed to avoid prejudice | Denial affirmed: incidents formed a crime spree—temporal/geographic proximity and similar modus operandi justified joinder |
| Admissibility of evidence relating to severed Count VIII (Jean incident) | Evidence of hiding in Jean home and the duffle bag was relevant to flight, concealment, identity, and inextricably intertwined context | Admission of severed-count evidence was unduly prejudicial and not sufficiently related | Admission affirmed: evidence was relevant to consciousness of guilt and inextricably intertwined to provide an intelligible chronology and identity link |
| Competency procedure and order | Court reviewed expert report, made independent oral finding of competency at hearing | Challenges: insufficient hearing, only one examiner appointed, report not filed, no written competency order | Convictions affirmed but remanded for entry of a nunc pro tunc written competency order because court made independent oral finding though no written order was entered |
| Exclusion of duffle bag contents (defense motion) | State: contents relevant to burglary, identity, and intent | Charles: prejudicial, beyond scope of charged counts | Court admitted contents (except condoms); limiting instruction offered—ruling not overturned on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1984) (crime-spree consolidation factors: temporal/geographic proximity and similarity of manner)
- Crossley v. State, 596 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1992) (joinder rule and danger of consolidation)
- Garcia v. State, 568 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1990) (episodic joinder analysis; consider temporal/geographic association and manner)
- Presley v. State, 199 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (requirements for competency hearing and when a status hearing suffices)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (trial court must make independent competency determination and enter written order)