final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
Palm Beach County; Jack S. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No.
P. Hyndman, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale
Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for
Darnell Razz was found guilty of two counts of first-degree
murder and one count of robbery with a firearm while masked.
He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison
for the murder convictions concurrent to an additional life
sentence for the robbery conviction. On appeal, Appellant
raises six arguments. We affirm without discussion five of
these arguments, and solely address Appellant's claim
that the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecution to
admit evidence of an unrelated shooting. As set forth below,
we affirm on this issue, and we affirm the trial court's
judgment and sentence.
evening in April 2010, two individuals wearing masks entered
a Circle K convenience store. Within minutes, gun shots were
heard, two store employees were dead, and a small amount of
cash was stolen. Appellant and Robert Alvarez were eventually
arrested and charged with the Circle K murders.
State's primary witness at trial was M.G. She testified
that on the evening of the murders, Alvarez texted M.G. that
he wanted a ride. M.G. picked up Alvarez from an apartment
complex, and at his request, she then drove to another
apartment complex and picked up Appellant. At Alvarez's
continued direction, she proceeded to drive to a recreation
center parking lot behind the Circle K, and then he and
Appellant got out of the car. When they returned after an
uncertain amount of time (less than thirty minutes) they
appeared "energized and uppity." They urgently
instructed M.G. to hurry up and leave. She noticed that
Appellant carried a "big, long gun" after he got
back in the car, even though she had not seen him exit the
car with the gun.
days after the Circle K murders, on May 8, 2010, Appellant
and another individual committed a robbery and attempted
homicide on a different victim. The victim survived and
identified Appellant as the individual who shot at him.
Moreover, bullets from the shooting matched bullet fragments
found at the Circle K. There was also testimony from additional
witnesses pertaining to a separate incident that occurred
twelve days after the Circle K murders. The witness, a police
officer, identified Appellant as the driver of a vehicle
parked in an apartment complex. Upon seeing the police
officer, Appellant ran from the vehicle and was later
detained. During the chase to apprehend Appellant, another
witness saw an individual matching Appellant's physical
features throw a gun into the neighborhood lake. One month
later, law enforcement retrieved a handgun from the same lake
and ballistics linked the handgun to the Circle K murders. A
bullet found lodged in the ceiling of the Circle K was
determined to come from the same handgun retrieved from the
lake. The other gun used in the commission of the Circle K
murders was never found. Further linking Appellant and
Alvarez to the guns was an acquaintance of Alvarez who
testified that he sold Alvarez a handgun and a long gun prior
to the murders.
and Alvarez were tried by jury and each were convicted of two
counts of first degree murder and one count of robbery with a
firearm while masked. The trial court denied Appellant's
motion for judgment of acquittal and entered final judgment
consistent with the jury's verdict.
the issues raised in Appellant's appeal is his assertion
that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the May 8
shooting. The admission of collateral crime evidence is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. McCray v.
State, 71 So.3d 848, 876 (Fla. 2011). A trial court
possesses wide discretion in determining the admissibility of
evidence. Jones v. State, 963 So.2d 180, 185 (Fla.
2007). "Discretion is abused only where no reasonable
person would take the view adopted by the trial court."
Id. The State may introduce evidence of a collateral
crime "when it is relevant to prove a material fact in
issue like identity, preparation, motive, intent,
opportunity, plan, absence of mistake or accident, or
knowledge." Sims v. State, 839 So.2d 807, 810
(Fla. 4th 2003); see also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla.
Stat. (2016). However, even if the evidence is relevant,
it is admissible only if its probative value is not
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
§ 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2016).
State presented evidence of the bullet fragments and the
victim's identification of Appellant as the perpetrator
in the second shooting to link Appellant and the gun to the
Circle K murder weapon. Appellant contends that the evidence
was cumulative and unnecessary because the State also
presented evidence that Appellant tossed the same gun linked
to the original shooting in a lake. Furthermore, Appellant
argues that the improper admission of collateral crime
evidence creates a presumption of harmful error. The State
counters and argues the trial court properly admitted
evidence of the second shooting because the evidence
pertaining to the bullet fragments was relevant to proving
the elements of the original crime. The State relies on
Barnett v. State, 151 So.3d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014),
where the defendant was similarly charged with first degree
murder with a firearm and robbery with a firearm.
Id. at 62. In that case, we affirmed the trial
court's admission of evidence of a subsequent shooting