Saldana v. State
139 So. 3d 351
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Elíseo Gonzales Saldana was charged with attempted first-degree murder while discharging a firearm, robbery, armed burglary of a dwelling, and shooting at/within/into a building; the burglary charge was dismissed.
- Jury convicted Saldana of attempted second-degree murder (lesser-included of count one) and shooting at/within/into a building; acquitted of robbery.
- Trial court sentenced Saldana as a habitual felony offender (HFO) to 50 years on the attempted murder count (with enhancements) and imposed a consecutive 15-year non-HFO sentence on the shooting count.
- Saldana challenged (1) the jury instruction on attempted manslaughter by act as a lesser-included offense, (2) admission of collateral crime evidence, and (3) imposition of consecutive sentences.
- The court affirmed the convictions, rejected the challenge to the manslaughter-by-act instruction (no fundamental error), but reversed the consecutive sentences as illegal under Hale v. State and remanded for concurrent sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on attempted manslaughter by act (lesser-included) | Instruction was erroneous because it required intent to kill (per Williams) and thus prejudiced jury consideration of the lesser offense | Defense argued self-defense; Saldana did not dispute intent to shoot, only justification, so the intent element was not contested | No fundamental error: instruction one-step removed but intent element was not disputed or material, so conviction stands |
| Consecutive HFO and non-HFO sentences for offenses from same episode | Consecutive sentences are illegal under Hale when offenses arise from same criminal episode | State conceded error | Reversed: consecutive HFO and non-HFO sentences illegal under Hale; remand to impose concurrent sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla. 2013) (standard attempted-manslaughter-by-act jury instruction is erroneous because it requires intent to kill)
- Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993) (prohibits consecutive HFO and non-HFO sentences when offenses arise from same criminal episode)
- Richards v. State, 128 So.3d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (self-defense may render intent element immaterial when defendant admits act but claims justification)
- Wicker v. State, 655 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (direct-appeal reversal of consecutive HFO sentences under Hale; remand for concurrent HFO sentences)