LLOYD V. CROSBY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2005 DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY LLOYD, ** Petitioner, ** vs. ** JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., SEC. FL DEPT. OF CORR., etc., CASE NO. 3D05-1344 ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 98-19062 Respondents. ** Opinion filed December 28, 2005. A case of Original Jurisdiction Habeas Corpus. Douglas Montgomery Lloyd, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Fleming, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents. Angel L. Before WELLS, SHEPHERD, and CORTIÃ AS, JJ. CORTIÃ AS, Judge. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus based on our holding in Dorsett v. McCray, 901 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The petitioner, with Gregory Douglas Dorsett Montgomery and both Lloyd, were was tried a co-defendant together. In considering Dorsett s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we determined that the court s jury instructions on robbery and false imprisonment resulted in fundamental error through the use of the and/or conjunction, which confusingly and incorrectly implied that either defendant could be convicted solely upon a finding that the other elements of the offenses. defendant s conduct satisfied the Dorsett, 901 So. 2d at 226. Had there been no material distinction between the cases of Gregory Dorsett and Douglas Montgomery Lloyd, we would certainly grant the relief sought, vacate the remaining convictions, and grant a new fundamental trial. error, However, we find in that reviewing there this exists a distinction between the cases of Dorsett and Lloyd. case for material Lloyd was allegedly one of the three armed gunmen that held up the victims in this case while Dorsett was allegedly the getaway driver. Dorsett was previously employed by the victims and, as a result, would have certainly been recognizable to the victims. careful review of the trial record, we find that After a there is nothing that Dorsett did or could have done which would have resulted in the wrongful conviction of Lloyd as a result of the improper and/or conjunction. As such, the trial court s error 2 in giving a jury instruction on robbery and false imprisonment with an and/or conjunction was harmless as to Lloyd. Accordingly, we deny the petition. 3
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.
