Royce Goldsmith v. State of Florida, 182 So. 3d 824

Royce Goldsmith, while on probation, was charged with robbery with a firearm (Count I), aggravated assault (Count II), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count III); Count III was tried separately.
Jury in the first trial convicted Goldsmith of the lesser included offenses of robbery and assault and found he did not actually possess a firearm during those crimes; the 911 caller (male victim) did not testify, female victim did.
In the separate trial on the felon-in-possession charge, police testified they recovered a handgun in the vehicle that left the scene; Goldsmith admitted seeing and touching the gun; he testified he did not think it was real.
At the felon-in-possession trial the prosecutor impeached Goldsmith with a Facebook printout showing the nickname “Biggy,” which the State had not disclosed to defense beforehand.
The trial court denied that the Facebook matter was a discovery violation after a limited inquiry; on appeal the State conceded the prosecutor failed to timely disclose the Facebook material.
The court affirmed convictions for robbery and assault and probation revocation, reversed the felon-in-possession conviction for a discovery violation (remanding for new trial), and reversed Habitual Felony Offender sentences for insufficient proof of prior convictions (remanding for resentencing).

Issue	Goldsmith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admission of 911 call statements (Confrontation Clause)	Admission violated Confrontation Clause because male victim didn’t testify	Statements were nontestimonial (ongoing emergency) or harmless error	Admission was proper as nontestimonial; alternatively any error was harmless; conviction for robbery/assault affirmed
Undisclosed Facebook impeachment (discovery/Richardson)	Failure to disclose Facebook nickname was willful/substantial discovery violation causing procedural prejudice	Facebook page was public; prosecutor lacked access until immediately before testimony; no violation	State conceded violation; trial court’s Richardson inquiry inadequate; reversal of felon-in-possession conviction and remand for new trial due to procedural prejudice
Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession (related to trial error)	Implicit challenge tied to discovery error and credibility	State relied on physical recovery of gun and defendant’s admission	Conviction reversed on discovery grounds; new trial ordered (issue not otherwise resolved)
Habitual offender sentencing proof	Sentencing as habitual offender unsupported because State failed to introduce proof of qualifying priors	State could attempt to prove priors at resentencing	Habitual felony offender sentences reversed; remanded for resentencing with chance for State to prove priors

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (statements to 911 during an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (ongoing-emergency test for testimonial statements)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (harmless-error standard in Florida criminal cases)
Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (requirements for discovery inquiry when violation alleged)
Landry v. State, 931 So. 2d 1063 (possible discovery violation triggers Richardson inquiry)
Brown v. State, 165 So. 3d 726 (trial court discretion in Richardson analysis must follow proper inquiry)
Thomas v. State, 63 So. 3d 55 (inadequate Richardson inquiry is error)
Schopp v. State, 653 So. 2d 1016 (discovery-violation harmless-error analysis; procedural prejudice standard)
Casica v. State, 24 So. 3d 1236 (definition of procedural prejudice from discovery violations)
Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (how to analyze procedural prejudice and defense response)
Cox v. State, 819 So. 2d 705 (harmlessness standard for State discovery violations is high)
Portner v. State, 802 So. 2d 442 (nondisclosure of impeachment material can affect defendant’s decision to testify)
State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (on remand State may again attempt to prove habitual-offender status)