FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, May 1, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. GODFREY
APPEAL NOS.: C-240140, C-240154
TRIAL NO.: B-2101673-A
KEY WORDS: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT — CONFRONTATION CLAUSE — HEARSAY — SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — AGGRAVATED MURDER — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — SEVERANCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — OTHER FIREARMS — PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE — EVID.R. 403(A) — EIGHTH AMENDMENT — CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT — CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES — FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER — ONE DOCUMENT RULE — MARSY’S LAW — RESTITUTION
SUMMARY: The prosecutors did not engage in misconduct by describing defendant as a “hired assassin” and “contract killer” during opening statements and closing arguments where the terms reflected the State’s theory of the case that defendant was paid to kill people and were not inserted merely to inflame the jury.
Defendant’s right of confrontation was not infringed by the detectives’ recitation of text messages in open court despite the participants in the messages not being called to testify because the contents of the messages were nontestimonial.
The recitation of text messages in open court did not violate the prohibitions against hearsay where the contents were admissible either as admissions by a party-opponent, statements by a coconspirator, or contextual statements.
Defendant’s convictions for aggravated murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where direct and circumstantial evidence established defendant’s identity as a complicitor in the first shooting and as a direct participant in the second shooting which took place two days later.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the charges involving two different shooting incidents where, despite the large number of witnesses and voluminous exhibits, the evidence pertaining to each incident was “simple and direct” in that there were two separate shootings, on two different dates, at two different locations, involving different victims, and the common nucleus was defendant.
Defendant did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel where his attorneys refrained from cross-examining witnesses who either testified in a very limited capacity or whose ability to convey favorable information was purely speculative and where said omissions did not yield a complete failure to mount a meaningful defense.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting selfie video footage showing defendant wielding an assault rifle and a pistol where the footage demonstrated defendant’s familiarity with and access to the types of firearms used in one of the shootings.
The sentences imposed by the trial court did not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment where the individual terms fell within the authorized statutory ranges and the trial court made the requisite consecutive sentence findings which were supported by the record.
Reversal of the sentences was not required where the trial court failed to order the terms on the firearm specifications to run consecutively and prior to the remainder of the sentence because that issue was moot in view of the fact that defendant was sentenced to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The trial court did not err in failing to incorporate defendant’s sentences on separate charges to which he pled guilty into the entry for the instant charges because those counts were severed and each entry comprised a final, appealable order in its own right.
The trial court erred in ruling it was foreclosed from ordering restitution to one of the victims by virtue of defendant’s sentence to life in prison.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; ZAYAS and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. PERKINS
APPEAL NO.: C-240428
TRIAL NO.: 24/CRB/3453
KEY WORDS: TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARASSMENT — TEXT MESSAGE — AUTHENTICATION — PLAIN ERROR — SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for telecommunications harassment was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence: The admission of the text messages that served as the basis for the charge did not constitute plain error and the evidence showed that defendant sent the harassing and threatening text messages to the victim.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.