RONNIE TRAVIS KRUSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
222 So. 3d 13
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ronnie Travis Kruse was charged with felony battery on an elderly person (over 65) with a prior conviction; jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of felony battery with prior conviction.
- Incident: Kruse and the 65‑year‑old victim had an altercation outside the victim’s home; witnesses and Kruse testified the victim made the first physical contact (slapped/swiped Kruse’s finger) and Kruse hit the victim during a struggle, breaking the victim’s jaw.
- Kruse consistently maintained at trial that he acted in self‑defense and that he feared for his safety; defense counsel emphasized the victim as the aggressor in closing argument.
- Defense counsel never requested a jury instruction on self‑defense; during deliberations the jury asked whether an affirmative defense applied and was told no such instruction had been given.
- On appeal Kruse argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request the self‑defense instruction; the Fourth District agreed and reversed and remanded for a new trial on the lesser included offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a self‑defense instruction | Kruse: counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudicial; record supports self‑defense and jury likely would have considered it | State: omission could be a reasonable strategic decision because jurors might not find self‑defense credible against an older, feeble victim | Court: Counsel was ineffective; omission prejudiced Kruse; reverse and remand for new trial |
| Whether ineffective assistance may be decided on direct appeal | Kruse: claim is apparent on the face of the record and appropriate for direct review | State: such claims are generally reserved for post‑conviction relief and not usually decided on direct appeal | Court: allowed on direct appeal because incompetence and prejudice were obvious on the record |
| Scope of remand and double jeopardy implication | Kruse: requested relief of a new trial on the convicted lesser included offense | State: N/A | Court: reversed conviction for felony battery with prior conviction and remanded for a new trial on that charge; conviction of lesser implies acquittal of greater for double jeopardy purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. State, 191 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2016) (ineffective assistance claims usually reserved for post‑conviction but may be decided on direct appeal when apparent on the record)
- Michel v. State, 989 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (ineffective assistance claims should rarely be raised on direct appeal unless apparent on the face of the record)
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2000) (strategic trial decisions are protected; counsel not ineffective merely because later counsel disagrees)
- McComb v. State, 174 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (ineffectiveness apparent on the record can obviate need for post‑conviction proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Middleton v. State, 131 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (conviction of a lesser included offense implies acquittal of the greater offense for double jeopardy purposes)