CHARMARKCO S. EVANS, Appellant,
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No.
Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant Public
Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
appellant, Charmarkco S. Evans, appeals his judgments and
sentences for two counts of felony battery. On appeal, the
appellant asserts that the trial court erred by admitting
inadmissible hearsay evidence and by adjudicating and
sentencing him on both counts of felony battery in violation
of Double Jeopardy. We affirm without discussion the trial
court's rulings on the hearsay claims. We also affirm the
judgments and sentences on both counts of felony battery,
having determined there was no Double Jeopardy violation.
Background and Trial Court Proceedings
appellant was tried on four criminal charges: (1) felony
battery-serious bodily injury with prior conviction, (2)
false imprisonment, (3) sexual battery, and (4) stalking. The
jury acquitted him of false imprisonment and stalking; hence,
we focus our discussion of the factual background regarding
the evidence and proceedings pertaining to count 1 (felony
battery-serious bodily injury with prior conviction) and
count 3 (sexual battery).
State presented evidence that the appellant and the victim
were in a relationship for a period of time before the
alleged crimes were committed. As sometimes happens in
domestic violence cases, the victim was a relatively
reluctant witness at trial. Nonetheless, she testified that
on a Sunday, she had been drinking heavily and went to the
appellant's apartment. Although the victim was unable to
remember all of the circumstances, she testified she
"very much remember[ed] him striking me in my face"
on Sunday. Lay and medical testimonial evidence, as well as
physical evidence, showed that the victim suffered a nasal
fracture, severe swelling around both eyes, a perforated left
eardrum, and significant facial bruising.
victim further testified that, out of fear that it would be
discovered he had beaten her, the appellant would not let her
leave his apartment for several days. She eventually was able
to trick the appellant into leaving the apartment on the
following Thursday to get some food, at which time she ran to
a neighbor's house. The neighbor called 911, leading to
the appellant's arrest.
victim gave equivocal testimony about being sexually battered
by the appellant on multiple occasions between Monday and
Thursday. There was no testimony of any sexual battery
occurring on Sunday, the day she was severely beaten in the
face by appellant. The victim's testimony was equivocal
in the sense that she testified that she consented to and
even initiated some of the sexual activity between Monday and
Thursday. However, she also testified that there were times
she participated in sex with the appellant out of fear that
he would resume beating her if she did not.
both counts 1 and 3, the jury was instructed on a lesser
included offense of battery. During deliberations, the jury
sent the following question to the trial court:
Your Honor, does Count III, Battery, Lesser Included Offense,
differ from Count I, Battery, Lesser Included Offense? In
other words, does Count III Battery have more of a sexual
trial court responded that "in both of those cases, the
meaning of battery doesn't change, " and again gave
the definition of a simple battery. Both the ...