Rodney L. Long Jr. v. State of Florida
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5182
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Long convicted of burglary of a dwelling for two separate residences (Webb and McGowan).
- Appeal alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise fundamental-error issue in jury instructions.
- Court found the jury instruction on burglary erroneous for directing conviction without requiring proof of an underlying offense at time of entry.
- McGowan burglary involved disputed intent; Webb burglary did not because Long conceded burglary occurred.
- Trial instructions initially required proof of intent to commit an offense in the structure, but later used circular phrasing "intent to commit burglary," which misdefined the offense.
- Remanded for new trial as to the McGowan charge; denied relief as to the Webb charge where intent was not disputed and counsel conceded burglary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circular instruction constitutes fundamental error | Long (appellant) argues error fundamental for McGowan | State argues no fundamental error given context | Fundamental error for McGowan; not fundamental for Webb |
| Was the McGowan intent dispute sufficient to trigger fundamental error | Intent to commit an offense was disputed | No dispute regarding McGowan intent due to defense | Fundamental error for McGowan; remand granted |
| Was Webb charge reversible error given concession | Burglary occurred as conceded | No dispute about Webb entry | Webb charge denied relief; no fundamental error |
| Should the instruction structure be cured by citing a specific offense | Circular wording caused confusion | Statute allows intent to commit an offense, not necessarily a named offense | Remains error for McGowan; Webb unaffected; potential instruction reform suggested |
| What remedy is appropriate for the McGowan error | New trial required for McGowan | No remand needed | Remanded for new trial on McGowan; denied for Webb |
Key Cases Cited
- Viveros v. State, 699 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (circular instruction treated as fundamental error when it impermissibly reduces required proof)
- Freeman v. State, 787 So.2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (error cured when later instruction clarified that an offense other than burglary was required)
- Battle v. State, 911 So.2d 85 (Fla.2005) (no dispute on an element negates fundamental error if facts concede the crime exists)
- Delva v. State, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla.1991) (undisputed elements do not create fundamental error absent objection)
- Waters v. State, 436 So.2d 66 (Fla.1983) (intent to commit an offense suffices; specific offense designation not always required)
- Toole v. State, 472 So.2d 1174 (Fla.1985) (burglary need not allege specific offense intended; essential element is intent to commit an offense)
- L.S. v. State, 464 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1985) (burglary intent can be proven without naming a specific offense)