HOLLINGS v. STATE (2022)

Breon Anthony Hollings was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated assault. On appeal, Hollings challenges only his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing that the jury rendered a legally inconsistent verdict. We affirm.

Hollings and the deceased victim, Eric Shay White, were involved in a drug deal that took place in a car during the early morning hours of August 20, 2017. White was planning to give “play money” and caffeine pills to Hollings. A second victim, Summer Wilbanks, was also in the car during the exchange when three other men approached. One of the three men pulled Wilbanks out of the car by her hair and held a gun to her head. Wilbanks testified that she did not know which perpetrator held a gun to her head or whether Hollings carried a firearm during the incident. While attempting to flee the scene with Wilbanks, White was shot and killed.

Hollings was charged with first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The jury was instructed that Hollings could be found guilty as a principal. See § 777.011, Fla. Stat. The jury found Hollings guilty of the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and aggravated assault.^* For the aggravated assault count, the jury found that Hollings “did not carry, display or use a firearm during the commission of the offense.”

Hollings filed a motion for new trial claiming the jury's verdict was a true inconsistent verdict. The trial court denied the motion, relying on this Court's decision in Turner v. State, 301 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Hollings was then sentenced as a habitual felony offender to twenty-five years for second-degree murder and five years for aggravated assault, to run concurrently.

“An inconsistent verdicts claim presents a pure question of law and is reviewed de novo.” Brown v. State, 959 So. 2d 218, 220 (Fla. 2007). Similarly, the standard of review applicable to a ruling on a motion for new trial concerning a pure issue of law is de novo. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 943 So. 2d 997, 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Florida law allows for factually inconsistent verdicts so long as acquittal on one count would not negate a necessary element for conviction of another count. See Boone v. State, 311 So. 3d 955, 959–60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); see also Brown, 959 So. 2d at 220 (explaining that true inconsistent verdicts involve legally interlocking charges).

Hollings did not need to possess a firearm in order to be found guilty of aggravated assault as a principal. See § 777.011, Fla. Stat. Wilbanks testified that she knew that Hollings participated in the commission of the offense. While she did not know who of the four perpetrators possessed a firearm, Wilbanks was certain that one of them held a gun to her head. See § 784.021(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (requiring that “aggravated assault” be committed with a “deadly weapon without intent to kill”). Consequently, the jury could reasonably find Hollings guilty of aggravated assault as a principal irrespective of whether he himself possessed a firearm.

For this reason, the instant case is distinguishable from this Court's decision in Gerald v. State, 132 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), which involved a crime committed by a single perpetrator. Unlike in Gerald, Hollings acted in concert with multiple people, one of whom unquestionably used a firearm during the assault. See §§ 777.011, 784.021(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   The State announced a nolle prosequi as to the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon following the jury's verdict.

Winokur, J.

Rowe, C.J., and Osterhaus, J., concur.