Michael Everett v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MICHAEL ROBERT EVERETT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D12-1180 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 22, 2013 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County, Raul A. Zambrano, Judge. Michael R. Everett, Malone, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. HARRIS, C.M., Senior Judge. Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and burglary of a dwelling with a battery while armed with a dangerous weapon. In an earlier appeal, the burglary was reduced to the second-degree felony of burglary of a dwelling as charged in the information.1 1 There is no issue involving this second count now before us. Evidence at trial revealed that at 9:40 p.m. on the evening of the offense, the victim, who was crying, called her friend, Ms. Moore, and told her that defendant had been to her house with a knife and threatened to kill her. Defendant had been drinking at Poor Walt s lounge, but a security tape showed that he was absent from the lounge at the time of the murder. His keys were found at the scene of the crime. He was convicted and his conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal. Everett v. State, 7 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Defendant is before us now based on an amended motion for post-conviction relief in which he claims his trial attorney was ineffective for not raising the fact that a juror was asleep during crucial testimony and in failing to call two witnesses whose testimony, he urges, would impeach Ms. Moore s testimony relating to the excited utterance phone call. The trial judge denied defendant s motion. Although defendant s parents testified that they saw a juror sleeping, the assistant state attorney and the defense counsel, both of whom testified that they watched out for sleeping jurors, saw none on this jury. The trial court s finding that the defendant failed to prove a sleeping juror had ample support in the record. Concerning the failure to call the two witnesses, the court found that the record reflects that the testimony of the witnesses now urged by defendant involved a separate meeting between the victim and defendant which occurred earlier in the day. There is support for this finding. AFFIRMED. LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
