DONZELL KEVIN NUCKLES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a complete lack of evidence for a conviction constitutes fundamental error, warranting reversal.
Donzell Nuckles was convicted of twelve counts after a jury trial. He appealed only one count, arguing the State failed to introduce any evidence for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
ON CONCESSION OF ERROR
After a jury trial, Donzell Nuckles was convicted of twelve counts. On appeal he challenges only one.1 As to the one count (Count 5), he argues the State failed to introduce any evidence particular to that count. The State concedes the record shows a complete lack of evidence as to Count 5. After review of the record, the State’s concession is well taken.
The State also concedes such complete lack of evidence constitutes fundamental error. The State’s concession on this point is also appropriate. A total lack of evidence constitutes fundamental error because it reaches to the foundation of the case and denies a defendant due process. F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230 (Fla.2003). The evidence must be “totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime” — a “complete failure.” Id.; see Hobson v. State, 908 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (explaining that “a conviction for an offense that did not take place constitutes fundamental reversible error”).
Accordingly, the State failed to introduce evidence sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction and sentence as to Count 5. We therefore REVERSE Appellant’s conviction as to that count and REMAND with instructions to vacate Appellant’s sentence as to Count 5 only.
ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003)
- Jefferey Hobson v. State, 908 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)