William Ebron State's Motion for Joinder

7/17/2019 William Ebron State's Motion for Joinder

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/william-ebron-states-motion-for-joinder 1/4

IN

THE

CIRCUIT

COURT

OF

THE

FOURTH

ruDICIAL

CIRCUIT,IN AND

FOR DWAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE

NO.:

A)

162015CF6602NO(XMA

B) 162013CF7314NOO(MA

DIVISION: CR-H

STATE of FLORIDA

v.

A) WILLIAM RUBEN EBRON,

Jr.

B)

LONNA LAURAMORE

BARTON

STATE'S

MOTION FOR JOINDER/CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED

OFFENSES

AND DEFENDANTS

COMES

NOW

the

undersigned

Assistant

State

Attorney,

and

respectfully requests this

Honorable Court

grant

the

State's

Motion for

ConsolidatiorVJoinder

ofRelated

Offenses/Defendants.

STATEMENT

OF FACTS

Defendants herein are

both

charged

with

a series

of

actions

resulting in

the neglect

of

the

same

minor child

and with subsequent

behavior undertaken

in an effort to

conceal

said

neglect.

The evidence and

witnesses

are

the same

in

each case,

as

are

the underlying

acts

giving

rise

to the charges. Joinder

is appropriate since

the same

evidence

would

establish

the fact and nature

of

the

relationship

between Defendants,

and

other witnesses, in

both

cases. Defendants

are

charged,

in

both

cases,

with acts

perpetrated

on

the same dates,

at

the same

locations, against the

same

victim,

and

in

firrtherance

of their

cofitmon

goal(s).



Standard

of

Review

Florida

Rules

of Criminal

Procedure

3.150(bX2)

and

(3)

and 3.151(a)

and

(b) permitjoinder

of

both

defendants

and

cases

where the

defendants

are

"charged

with conspiracy

and some

of

the

defendants

are also

charged

with 1 or

more offenses

alleged

to have been

committed

in furtherance

ofthe conspiracy;

or

eyettifconspiracy

is not charged

and

all

defendants

are

not charged

in

each

count,

it is alleged

that

the

several offenses

charged

were

part

of a common

scheme

or

plan.

. .

[t]wo

or more

indictments or

informations

charging

related offenses

shallbe

consolidated

for trial

on

a

timely motion[.]

Two or

more

offenses

are

related offenses

if they

are

triable

in the same

court

and

are

based

on

the

same

act

or transaction

or on

2

or

more

connected

acts

or transactions."

(Emphasis

supplied).

Joinder

and severance

of

Defendants

and

charges

is

generally

a matter

resting

within

the

Court's

discretion.

Smithers

v. State, 826 So.2d

916

(Fla.

2002).

One

method of

establishing

a basis

for

joinder

is

via a

"causal

link";

that

is,

one

crime

induced

the other

(see

general/y Fotopoulos

v.

State,

608 So.2d

994

(Fla.1992)

(defendant induced

a

codefendant to

murder

a

man

while

defendant

videotaped

the crime,

then

used the

videotape

to

blackmail

the same

codefendant

into soliciting

a

second

murder

a month

later)"

Where

"there is clearly

a meaningful

relationship

between

the

two

crimes

and

they

are

without

question

linked

in

some

significant

wa. ,"

Smithers,

supra,

at923,the

matters

may

be

tried

jointly,

even,

as in

Smithers,

if the

crimes

do not

represent

a

single

"spree" or

have

a

causal

link. See

a/so

Brunner

v.

State, 683 So.2d

ll29

(Fla.4'h

DCA

1996).

Here, there

can

be

no

question that the crimes

and

their

perpetrators were

linked

in

a significant

way to

one another.

The concept

is

perhaps

best

exemplified

by

the type

ofjoinder

demonstrated

in the

cases

of

Lugo

v.

State,845

So.2d

74

(F\a.2003)

and Mese

v.

state,824

So.2d

908

(Fla.

3d

DCA 2002).

Lugo

and

Mese

were

actually

codefendants

(with

a third

individual,

Doorbal)

who

were

tried



together

on multiple charges including RlCO/conspiracy

and

homicides.

Essentially

they were

alleged to have been

part

of an

ongoing

conspiracy to kidnap and torture wealthy individuals and

force them to turn over

assets,

after which they would

kill

the

victims. Lugo was

one

of the actual

torlure/killers

(as

was

Doorbal),

Mese

was

the

accountant

who handled financial arrahgements. Both

courts held that the defendants and their charges were

properly

tried

together. Commentary

from the

Supreme Court

of

Florida's opinion

in Lugo

(854

So.2d

at95-96)

is

particularly

instructive:

The

careful

planning

that surrounded each of these incidents,

along

with

the

manner

of

execution, obviates the conclusion that they

were entirely random, disconnected

events. .

this

type

of

activity over

a

six-month

period

does

not have the

characteristics of impulsive, sporadic

behavior. The

nature

of

these

crimes

removes them

from

the

category of being merely similar

to each other,

and

requires

they be

placed

in the category of connected

acts

or transactions.

.

.

We

further note that if separate

trials

[on

the

crimes]

had

been

held, evidence of

[the

first

set]

would have been

admissible

in Lugo's trial for

[the

second

set]

and

vice

versa.

This evidence would

have

been

admissible

in

separate

trials

to establish

the existence

of

an

ongoing,

common scheme to

target wealthy

victims, as well as

to establish

the entire

context

within

which Lugo's criminal activity

occurred.

(Emphasis

supplied).

Defendants

have no absolute

right to separate

trials.

"[T]he fact that a defendant

might

have

a

better

chance

ofacquittal or

a strategic advantage

iftried

separately

does

not establish

the

right to

severance,

nor

is hostility itmong

defendants, or

an

attempt by

one

defendant

to escape

punishment

by throwing

blame on

a codefendant,

a

suffrcient reason,

by itselfl.]

Williams

v.

State,

567 So.2d

9(Fla.4thDCA1990).

AswasthecaseinLugo,

supraat96,101-l02,thefactthatacodefendant

attempts to

incriminate

a

defendant,

does

not

entitle

the defendant to

a

separate

trial

or

prejudice his

right to

a fair

determination

of his

innocence:

"there is

always some

prejudice

in

any trial

where

more

than one offense

or offender

are

tried

together-

but

such

garden

variety

prejudice,

in

and of

itself,

will not suffice."

Nor

will the

passage

of

even

a

substantial

amount

of time,

Brunner,

supro,



or

the

occasion

when

both

defendants

raise

alibi

defenses,

Johnson

v.

State

,

720

5o.2d,232

(Fla.

1998),

mandate

severance.

Here,

neither

defendant

has

of

record

any

defense

which

would

require

severance.

AccordinglY,

the

State

submits

that

joinder

of

Defendants,

for

trial

on both

sets

of charges,

should

be

granted.

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

I do

certifr

that

a copy

hereof

has

been

fumished

to

A. Perkins,

Esq.,

Office

of

the

Public

Defender

K.

Carlisle,

Esq.,

Office

of

Regional

Conflict

Counsel,

Attorneys

for

Defendants,

by

e-service

this

29 day

of

September,

ZOl5.

Respectfully

submitted,

--*':"--->

.l

(

, )--;

<i r-i

ri\-UV

(t",Li;

Richard

W.

Mantbi

Assistant

State Attorney

Bar

#119296

Documents

William Ebron State's Motion for Joinder