ELISHA BAXTER v. State ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed January 20, 2021.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D18-1246
    Lower Tribunal No. 16-9295
    ________________
    Elisha Baxter,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    The State of Florida,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K.
    Johnson, Judge.
    Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and James A. Odell, Assistant
    Public Defender, for appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.
    GORDO, J.
    Elisha Baxter appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree
    murder with a deadly weapon. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.
    9.140(b)(1)(A). Baxter argues there was insufficient evidence at trial to
    sustain the conviction and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move
    for a reduction of the charge to manslaughter. Because the record before
    us contains competent, substantial evidence of Baxter’s guilt and the jury
    was appropriately instructed on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter,
    we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Elisha Baxter shot Derrius Meriweather to death outside Grumpy’s Bar
    and Grill in broad daylight with witnesses and video abounding. The two
    men had been involved in a fist fight two weeks prior, in which Baxter was
    admittedly victorious. On the date in question, Meriweather was outside the
    bar when Baxter arrived with his friend, Albert Sistrunk, a 200-pound former
    wrestler. Baxter and Sistrunk approached Meriweather, who began walking
    backwards to get away from them. The bartender at Grumpy’s took out her
    cellphone and began recording as she saw Baxter and Sistrunk approach
    Meriweather because she gleaned there was about to be a fight from the
    way Baxter was speaking to Meriweather. Baxter and Sistrunk followed
    Meriweather clear across the parking lot and corralled him in the swale of a
    2
    major roadway.     Then suddenly, Meriweather bent down to pick up
    something from the ground and stabbed Baxter.
    The men took off running. While Sistrunk and Meriweather ran away
    from Grumpy’s in separate directions, Baxter ran back to the parking lot and
    retrieved a firearm from inside his truck. Baxter loaded his gun, ran back
    across the parking lot and crossed the street, shooting an unarmed
    Meriweather several times from behind. Meriweather’s body was found in
    the backyard of the house across the street with a total of ten gunshot
    wounds.    The medical examiner testified the gunshot wounds were
    consistent with Meriweather running away from the shooter, bending over or
    being on the ground.
    In his defense, Baxter testified that he had beaten up Meriweather a
    few weeks prior to the incident at Grumpy’s but claimed they had no “beef.”
    His testimony was that Meriweather approached and stabbed him without
    provocation, and that he ran to his car to get the gun in order to defend his
    friend, Sistrunk. Baxter then explained that after he chased Meriweather to
    the house, Meriweather charged at him and he shot back in self-defense.
    But Baxter also admitted to shooting Meriweather from behind while he was
    running away from him.
    3
    At the close of the case, the trial court denied the defense’s motion for
    judgment of acquittal. The court found that competent, substantial evidence
    had been submitted for each element of the charged crime and it was for the
    jury to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses to determine
    whether a crime was committed or whether Baxter’s use of force was
    excusable or justifiable. The trial court instructed the jury as to the elements
    of second-degree murder, the lesser-included offense of manslaughter,
    justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. The jury found Baxter guilty of
    second-degree murder with a deadly weapon. Baxter was sentenced to a
    term of thirty-two years imprisonment.       He appeals his conviction and
    sentence.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    “In reviewing an order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal, our
    standard of review is de novo, whereby this Court reviews the evidence
    presented below to determine whether, as a matter of law, the evidence is
    legally adequate to sustain the defendant’s conviction.” Garcia v. State, 
    276 So. 3d 860
    , 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citing Johnston v. State, 
    863 So. 2d 271
    , 283 (Fla. 2003)).      Generally, a conviction that is supported by
    competent, substantial evidence will be affirmed. 
    Id.
     “There is sufficient
    evidence to sustain a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light
    4
    most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of
    the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”            
    Id.
     at 865–66
    (quoting Johnston, 
    863 So. 2d at 283
    ). “Where ‘a rational trier of fact could
    lawfully find that the evidence proved the existence of all the elements of the
    crime of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the appellate
    court should defer to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of
    acquittal.” Sandhaus v. State, 
    200 So. 3d 112
    , 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
    (quoting Morgan v. State, 
    127 So. 3d 708
    , 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)).
    LEGAL ANALYSIS
    Second-degree murder is “[t]he unlawful killing of a human being, when
    perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a
    depraved mind regardless of human life . . .” § 782.04(2), Fla. Stat. (2019).
    Baxter argues that the evidence in the record is insufficient to sustain the
    jury’s finding that Baxter’s killing of Meriweather was an act evincing a
    depraved mind. 1 We find, however, that the State presented competent,
    1
    Florida Standard Jury Instructions define the term
    “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a
    depraved mind regardless of human life” as an act or
    series of acts that:
    1. a person of ordinary judgment would
    know is reasonably certain to kill or do
    serious bodily injury to another, and
    5
    substantial evidence in the form of eye-witness testimony, photos, a cell
    phone camera video and video surveillance from which the jury could find
    the depraved mind element. The evidence presented to the jury showed that
    Baxter initially confronted and corralled Meriweather and then ran to his truck
    to retrieve a gun, loaded it with ammunition, chased Meriweather down and
    shot him multiple times in the back. The jury also heard, and rejected,
    Baxter’s own account of the incident. On review, we conclude the evidence
    was legally adequate to sustain Baxter’s conviction and affirm the denial of
    the motion for judgment of acquittal. See Finch v. State, 
    299 So. 3d 579
    ,
    581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“Because a reasonable jury could find that the
    evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, established beyond
    a reasonable doubt that Appellant shot the victim with ill will, malice, hatred,
    spite, or evil intent, the trial court did not err by denying his motion for
    judgment of acquittal.”).
    2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an
    evil intent, and
    3. is of such a nature that the act itself
    indicates an indifference to human life.
    To prove that an act demonstrates a depraved mind,
    the state must prove that it was done from “ill will,
    hatred, spite or an evil intent.”
    Sigler v. State, 
    805 So. 2d 32
    , 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (internal citations
    omitted).
    6
    Baxter additionally argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
    move for a reduction of the charge to manslaughter as a matter of law.
    Generally, “a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on
    direct appeal.” Corzo v. State, 
    806 So. 2d 642
    , 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “On
    rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rule when the
    ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice
    caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the
    conduct is inconceivable.” 
    Id.
     This case is not an exception to the rule as
    ineffectiveness is not apparent on the face of this record.
    Affirmed.
    7