Brandon Williamson v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledNovember 18, 2020
Docket1D20-2849
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-2849
_____________________________
BRANDON WILLIAMSON,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.
November 18, 2020
ROWE, J.
Brandon Williamson petitions this Court for a writ of habeas
corpus, challenging the trial court’s order denying his motion to set
bail. Williamson argues that he has a right to bail and pretrial
release. We denied his petition by unpublished order, and now
write to explain our reasons for doing so.
Facts
The State charged Williamson with second-degree murder
with a weapon. At his first appearance, Williamson entered a plea
of not guilty. After finding probable cause to detain him, the first
appearance judge declined to allow for Williamson’s release.
Williamson then moved to set bail. At the evidentiary hearing
on the motion, the trial court considered the arrest and booking
report and a surveillance recording depicting the altercation
between Williamson and the victim. The court also heard the
testimony of one witness.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court
denied Williamson’s motion for bail. He petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus and seeks review of the trial court’s order.
Analysis
We review a trial court’s order denying bail for an abuse of
discretion. See Mehaffie v. Rutherford, 143 So. 3d 432, 434 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2014).
Article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution provides:
Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense
punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is
evident or the presumption is great, every person charged
with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance
shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable
conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably
protect the community from risk of physical harm to
persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or
assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused
may be detained.
This provision of Florida’s Constitution generally guarantees
persons charged with a crime the right to pretrial release. See id.
But a person charged with a capital offense or life offense may be
denied pretrial release where the State can show that “the proof of
guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” See Williams v. State,
266 So. 3d 1197, 1197–98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
The State charged Williamson with an offense punishable by
life imprisonment, second-degree murder with a weapon. See
§§ 782.04(2), 775.087(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). And so the trial court
could deny him pretrial release if the State could show that “the
proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Williams, 266
2
So. 3d at 1198. To meet that burden, the State had to present more
than the indictment or information. See State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d
717, 720 (Fla. 1980). The State had to “present some further
evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the state,
would be legally sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of guilty.” Id.
That is, the evidence of the accused’s guilt must be manifest, plain,
clear, obvious, and conclusive. See Kirkland v. Fortune, 661 So. 2d
395, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Based on the evidence presented, the State met its burden to
present clear evidence of Williamson’s guilt. First, the court
considered the arrest report affidavit. The report stated that
Williamson called 911 and advised the operator that he stabbed
someone. Police officers arrived at the scene of the altercation,
outside Williamson’s apartment. They found the victim suffering
from a stab wound to the shoulder. Paramedics arrived and
transported the victim to the hospital. But he was later
pronounced dead.
The arrest report also reflects that the police interviewed
Hamp Green, the property manager at Williamson’s apartment
complex. Green stated that Williamson called him on the phone to
report that the victim was banging on Williamson’s door. Green
heard a verbal altercation between Williamson and the victim.
Right afterwards, Williamson asked Green to call 911 and told
Green that he had stabbed the victim. Green did not report hearing
the victim threaten Williamson in any way.
The arrest report also suggests that the police interviewed an
eyewitness to the stabbing, the victim’s friend, Zachary Barrera.
Barrera saw the victim knock on Williamson’s door and then walk
away when there was not an immediate answer. About thirty
seconds later, Williamson opened the door and walked toward the
victim. The victim stepped back. Barrera did not observe the victim
ever try to enter Williamson’s apartment. Instead, the victim
mostly kept his distance from Williamson. Barrera thought at one
point the victim took a swipe at Williamson’s cell phone.
Williamson then swung his right hand at the victim’s left shoulder,
and Barrera realized Williamson stabbed the victim. Barrera
believed that the victim was unarmed and did not see the victim
3
swing at Williamson or spit on him. Barrera did not report that he
saw or heard the victim threaten Williamson in any way.
Next, the court considered a post-Miranda statement from
Williamson. Williamson told officers that he and the victim had
been arguing over a hammer and screwdriver that belonged to the
victim. Williamson heard the victim banging loudly on the door of
his apartment. He called Green from his mobile phone so that
Green could listen to what took place. Williamson then grabbed a
knife from his kitchen before he opened the door. Williamson
stated that the victim started to approach him, so he stepped out
of his apartment into the breezeway. Williamson claimed that the
victim then “got up in his face” and “spat in his face.” Williamson
said that he became disoriented and swung the knife in a
downward direction. When he saw the victim begin to fall, he
caught him and helped him to the ground.
But to contradict Williamson’s statement and his version of
events, the State entered into evidence a surveillance recording
(including audio and video) of the breezeway in front of
Williamson’s apartment. The recording depicts the victim banging
loudly on Williamson’s door and kicking the door. When no one
answered, the victim walked away. But about twenty seconds
later, Williamson emerged from the apartment. The victim walked
back toward Williamson and demanded that Williamson return his
screwdriver and hammer.
The surveillance recording then showed that Williamson
advanced on the victim. The victim started to step backwards. But
Williamson raised his arm and pushed the victim to the ground.
The altercation moved off camera, but screams from the victim
were still audible. Williamson stood over the victim. He declared
that the victim came to his door, spat in his face, and would die if
he did not call the police right now. The victim can be heard
gasping and wheezing while Williamson repeatedly said that he
acted in self-defense. Williamson claimed twice that he was acting
in “self-defense” at the very time he stabbed the victim and forced
the victim to the ground. Williamson told the victim that his actions
were in retaliation for the victim spitting in his face. Then,
Williamson called 911 and calmly explained his self-defense
claim—while the victim was still gasping for air and in distress.
4
This concluded the State’s presentation of evidence at the bail
hearing. After hearing argument from the parties, considering the
recording of the altercation, and reviewing the arrest and booking
report and other documents in the court file, the trial court found
that the proof of Williamson’s guilt was evident and the
presumption was great.
Based on our review of the petition, the response, the reply,
and the appendices, we hold that the trial court did not err in
denying Williamson’s motion for bail. And so, we deny
Williamson’s habeas petition on the merits.
DENIED.
B.L. THOMAS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Charlie Coffer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Hogan Webb,
Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
5