Title: Larkin v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-702 
____________ 
 
 
GREGORY DAVID LARKIN, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
[May 22, 2014] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Gregory David Larkin was convicted of the April 2009 first-degree murders 
of his parents, Richard and Myra Larkin, and he was sentenced to death for both 
murders.  This is Larkin’s direct appeal.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 
3(b)(1), Fla. Const.  Having reviewed the record and considered the issues 
presented, we affirm Larkin’s convictions and sentences. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
In July 2009, a Nassau County grand jury indicted Larkin, who was 35 years 
old, on two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents in April of 
 
 
- 2 -
that same year.  The case proceeded to a jury trial, at which Larkin elected to 
represent himself. 
A.  Self-Representation 
 
Although the trial court initially appointed a public defender, Brian 
Morrissey, to represent Larkin, Larkin subsequently sought to discharge counsel at 
a November 2009 hearing.  Larkin contended that Morrissey waived his right to a 
speedy trial, played a role in covering up a “second indictment” signed by another 
judge, and tried to elicit information from Larkin in secretly recorded 
conversations to aid the prosecution.  Under oath, Morrissey explained Larkin’s 
apparent confusion regarding the different judges at different proceedings, stated 
that he was unaware of any illegal recording of confidential interviews with his 
client, and referenced the judge’s earlier explanation that a speedy trial was waived 
in light of the substantial issues in the case.  Defense counsel assured the trial court 
that he was working on behalf of his client to address the charges.  The trial court 
concluded that there was no basis for Larkin’s claim that defense counsel was 
rendering ineffective assistance.  Accordingly, the trial judge asked if Larkin 
wanted to discharge counsel and represent himself, and Larkin declined. 
 
In July 2010, Larkin obtained private counsel in lieu of Morrissey.  
However, in September 2011, private counsel requested and was granted 
permission to withdraw from representation.  At that time, Larkin sought to 
 
 
- 3 -
represent himself.  The trial court held a Faretta hearing, see Faretta v. California, 
422 U.S. 806 (1975), informing Larkin of the advantages of having a lawyer, 
questioning Larkin about his understanding of the limitations and disadvantages of 
self-representation, and determining his competency to knowingly and intelligently 
waive counsel.  Larkin stated that he was 38 years old, knew and understood 
English, had attended two years of community college, was not impaired, had 
never previously represented himself, and while awaiting trial, had read some of 
the books in the law library.  The judge determined that Larkin was competent to 
waive counsel but withheld his ruling.  Then, at a hearing on October 13, 2011, 
Larkin reaffirmed his desire to represent himself, and the trial judge ruled that 
Larkin could represent himself but reappointed Morrissey as standby counsel.  At 
subsequent hearings on November 3 and December 20, 2011, the trial court again 
discussed the advantages and disadvantages of self-representation, and Larkin 
reaffirmed his election to represent himself and to have only standby counsel. 
 
On January 5, 2012, before the hearing on Larkin’s motion to suppress, the 
trial judge again held a Faretta colloquy and encouraged Larkin to obtain or accept 
counsel in light of the seriousness of the proceeding.  Larkin, however, chose 
continued self-representation, stating that he understood the pros and cons of his 
decision.  Larkin then argued the motion to suppress authored by prior counsel, 
contending that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him in April 2009 
 
 
- 4 -
and that the evidence obtained from his hotel room at that time should be 
suppressed.  After hearing arguments, the trial court denied the motion. 
 
During jury selection the next day, Larkin again declined the offer of 
appointment of counsel and stated that he would allow the prosecutor to select the 
jury.  After the judge and prosecutor questioned the potential jurors, Larkin 
declined to strike any potential juror.  For reasons that included opposition to the 
death penalty, a stated inability to be impartial, and work-related hardship, among 
others, the trial court struck ten potential jurors, and the prosecutor struck four.  In 
addition, two alternate jurors were chosen. 
B.  The Guilt Phase 
 
The trial commenced on January 9, 2012.  Larkin invoked the rule to 
exclude witnesses from the courtroom, and the jury was sworn in.  See § 90.616, 
Fla. Stat. (2011).  After the prosecutor’s opening statement, Larkin argued to the 
jury that he was innocent.  He stated that the evidence would show that his parents 
were killed three to five days before their bodies were discovered on April 18, 
2009, and that he was out of the country from April 12 to April 18.  Claiming that 
no evidence tied him to the murders, he stated that there were no fingerprints or 
DNA evidence on the murder weapon and two witnesses would testify that they 
saw or spoke to Larkin’s parents on April 14, 2009, when Larkin was out of the 
 
 
- 5 -
country.  Finally, he argued that the prosecution could not produce an eyewitness 
or establish a motive for the murders. 
 
The evidence at trial showed that in January 2009, Larkin unexpectedly 
arrived at his parents’ Fernandina Beach home for a visit and stayed for several 
months.  Larkin managed the family owned business in Costa Rica, a dive shop 
named Aquamor.  The business was failing at that time, and there was ongoing 
dissension in the family over whether to sell it.  Richard Larkin, III (Rick), 
Gregory Larkin’s older brother, testified that their father was actively trying to sell 
the business at the time of his death and Gregory Larkin opposed the sale.  Other 
members of the family also disagreed on whether they should sell the business. 
The evidence showed that late on the morning of April 12, 2009, Larkin 
parked his parents’ car at the Jacksonville International Airport, bought a one-way 
ticket to Mexico at about 11:30 a.m., and flew to Mexico in the mid-afternoon.  
One week later, on the morning of April 18, a Nassau County Sheriff’s deputy was 
dispatched to the Larkins’ home to perform a wellness check that was prompted by 
a family friend’s concern about not having heard from Richard and Myra Larkin 
for several days.  The deputy found a FedEx package on the Larkins’ doorstep that 
had been delivered on April 14.  No one responded when the deputy knocked on 
the door and rang the doorbell.  He then walked around to the back of the house, 
where he entered the unlocked screen enclosure around the pool.  Peering through 
 
 
- 6 -
the glass doors into the family room, he saw Myra Larkin lying dead on the floor 
with a pool of dried blood by her head. 
When backup officers arrived, they forced entry into the securely locked 
home.  In the living room where Myra Larkin’s body lay, blood and blood spatter 
was observed on various surfaces, including a chair and hassock, the entertainment 
center and television, the wall, and covers of magazines.  As the officers searched 
the house, they soon found Richard Larkin dead, lying on the floor of his garage 
office.  His face was unrecognizable, and a large stone statue from the pool area 
lay on his chest.  There was blood on the office cabinets, walls, desk chair, office 
machinery, and paperwork, and a baseball bat discolored by blood was found just 
outside the office door. 
Except for the two murder sites, the house was otherwise tidy, although 
there was some clutter on the kitchen counter—food items, wine, and used wine 
glasses—apparently related to meal preparation.  Valuables including televisions, 
jewelry, computers, and Myra Larkin’s purse, however, were in plain view.  In 
light of this fact and evidence that the home was securely locked, it was clear that 
no burglary had occurred.  Documents on the dining room table were admitted into 
evidence over Larkin’s hearsay objection.  They included plane tickets with 
Larkin’s name on them, copies of e-mails to Richard Larkin offering to discuss the 
purchase of Aquamor, and Gregory Larkin’s scuba certification card. 
 
 
- 7 -
 
Because Richard and Myra Larkin’s vehicle was missing, a BOLO was 
quickly issued, and the vehicle was located in the parking lot of the Jacksonville 
International Airport later on the same day that the murders were discovered.  
Also, Gregory Larkin flew into Jacksonville that evening, arriving at 
approximately 10 p.m. and then checking into a nearby hotel.  That is where 
authorities found him in the early morning hours of April 19.  After an initial 
interview, he was taken to the Police Memorial Building in Jacksonville for further 
questioning, which was videotaped.  Over Larkin’s objection, the trial court 
admitted the initial portion of the videotape into evidence but granted his objection 
to exclude the portion of the video that followed Larkin’s invocation of his right to 
counsel. 
During the interview, Larkin was not told that his parents were found dead, 
and he did not ask about his parents.  Larkin told law enforcement officers that he 
left his parents’ home on April 12 and flew to Mexico to look for a job.  He 
explained that he took his parents’ car because they were supposed to leave on a 
trip for which they had planned to rent a car.  Asked if he had called his parents 
upon his return to Jacksonville, Larkin told police that no one answered the phone 
when he called, but it was possible that he had misdialed, as he sometimes did.  
The police arrested Larkin for grand theft of the automobile and, pursuant to a 
warrant, searched his hotel room.  In his backpack, they found, among other items, 
 
 
- 8 -
airline ticket receipts and his mother’s gold bracelet, which his brother Rick Larkin 
later testified was valued at $8,000.  The grand theft auto charge was ultimately 
nolle prosequied. 
With regard to time of death, evidence of when people last saw the victims 
was presented.  Moyra Bird-Owens, a longtime friend of Myra Larkin, testified 
that she last spoke to Mrs. Larkin on April 10, 2009.  She then went to the Larkins’ 
home on April 12 but left when she saw that the garage door was closed and the 
car was gone.  Her subsequent telephone calls went unanswered.  Rick Larkin, the 
Larkins’ oldest son, testified that he last spoke to his mother on April 11, and that 
his parents’ bank account showed no activity since that date.  April 11 was also the 
last time Rick spoke to his brother Gregory before the murders.  They made plans 
for Gregory to visit Rick the following weekend on April 17, but Gregory did not 
contact Rick further.  In addition, the manager of a movie rental business testified 
that Myra Larkin was a regular customer who always returned rentals promptly, 
but she did not return the movie that she rented on April 11.  Home Depot and 
Harris Teeter sales receipts and security videos of April 11 showed that Myra 
Larkin made purchases at the stores at 3:35 and 4:23 p.m.  Not only did the items 
on the grocery store’s conveyor belt match the groceries found on the Larkins’ 
kitchen counter on April 18, but when Myra Larkin’s body was discovered, she 
was dressed in the same clothes that she wore in the April 11 store videos.  The 
 
 
- 9 -
evidence indicated that when she was killed, she was sitting in the living room 
watching the movie that she had rented on April 11.  When Richard Larkin was 
killed, he was using the computer in his home office, which was built into the 
garage.  He typically spent much of his time there.  The computer was last used on 
April 11, 2009, at 8 p.m. 
The medical examiner, Dr. Jesse Giles, conducted both autopsies.  At the 
outset of his testimony, the trial judge overruled Larkin’s objection that 
photographs of the decedents at the crime scene were unduly prejudicial.  Dr. Giles 
testified that both victims were killed at about the same time and estimated that 
when found on April 18, the couple had been dead for at least three to five days, 
but it could have been as many as seven days.  He explained that such estimates are 
inexact and might be affected by external factors, such as when the victims were 
last contacted or seen alive, or when a computer was last used or a movie was 
rented.  He concluded that both Richard and Myra Larkin died from skull fractures 
and hemorrhaging resulting from blunt force trauma.  The manner of death was 
homicide. 
According to Dr. Giles, Myra Larkin was attacked from behind.  A 
significant blunt force blow to the left side of her head caused massive skull 
fractures and tearing of her scalp, resulting in part of her brain emerging from her 
skull.  In addition, she had defensive injuries to her arm and hand resulting from a 
 
 
- 10 -
blunt force blow that lacerated her hand, exposing the tendons and fracturing a 
finger.  Dr. Giles opined that the weapon had no discernible pattern and was likely 
smooth, which was consistent with a baseball bat. 
Richard Larkin was also likely to have been attacked from behind.  He 
sustained at least five or six blunt force blows to his head, resulting in a broken 
skull cap and extensive brain injuries.  The lacerations and bruising on his arm 
were defensive wounds.  In addition, post-mortem, the victim’s face was mashed 
flat, his nose broken, and his ribs fractured on both sides of his chest.  Dr. Giles 
stated that Richard Larkin’s wounds indicated an assailant with a significant degree 
of anger. 
Arnika Edmondson, an analyst with the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement (FDLE), developed complete DNA profiles of Larkin and the two 
victims in order to analyze various evidentiary items.  She then tested a T-shirt, a 
pair of shorts, and two pairs of socks found behind the bathroom door nearest to 
the bedroom where Gregory Larkin’s belongings were located.  The blood on the 
exterior of the T-shirt matched the DNA of Richard Larkin.  The blood on the front 
of the shorts matched Myra Larkin’s DNA.  Edmondson testified that when people 
exercise heavily, DNA can be transferred to their clothes.  The DNA from the 
interior waistband and zipper area of the shorts—“wearer DNA”—matched 
Gregory Larkin’s profile.  The likelihood that the wearer DNA would match an 
 
 
- 11 -
unrelated person other than Gregory Larkin was one in 6.9 quadrillion Caucasians, 
one in 2.1 quintillion African Americans, and one in 18 quadrillion Southeastern 
Hispanics.  A partial profile of wearer DNA on one sock of a pair also matched 
Gregory Larkin.  On the other pair of socks, Richard Larkin’s blood was found on 
the bottom of both socks and his wife’s on the top of one sock. 
DNA testing of two used wine glasses in the kitchen sink resulted in matches 
with Myra Larkin’s DNA on one and Gregory Larkin’s on the other.  The 
frequency of recurrence of Gregory Larkin’s DNA profile was one in 370 trillion 
Caucasians, one in 49 quadrillion African Americans, and one in 520 trillion 
Southeastern Hispanics.  A swab from one area of the baseball bat showed Myra 
Larkin to be the major contributor to a mixture of DNA, and a swab from another 
area of the bat contained Richard Larkin’s DNA. 
An FDLE fingerprint expert, William Tucker, testified that no usable or 
identifiable fingerprints were found on various objects, including the baseball bat, 
but Larkin’s fingerprints were found on an energy drink can.  In addition, Matthew 
Ruddell, an FDLE digital evidence analyst, examined the computers in the home 
and testified that the last time the computer in Richard Larkin’s office was used 
was April 11, 2009, at 8 p.m. 
Testimony on forensic crime scene reconstruction was provided by Michael 
Knox, a forensic consultant.  He opined that the motive for the murders was not 
 
 
- 12 -
robbery, but the trial judge sustained Larkin’s objection that this statement was 
speculative.  Knox then testified that in light of the similarity of injuries suffered 
by the victims, the evidence showed that one assailant used a single weapon in the 
attack.  Moreover, blood splatter analysis indicated that both victims were attacked 
from behind.  Regarding Myra Larkin’s murder, Knox testified that an initial 
glancing blow to Mrs. Larkin’s head also struck an adjacent lamp.  Although she 
moved to escape, she was soon so disabled by the subsequent blows that she 
collapsed onto the floor, where she was struck again. 
According to Knox, the murder of Richard Larkin was dramatically different 
and lasted for a longer period of time.  He was sitting in a chair at his desk in his 
garage office with his back to the doorway when his assailant hit him on the head.  
Richard Larkin was struck by multiple blows, and his blood splattered all over the 
room.  Like his wife, he tried to ward off the attack to no avail and stood up.  
Ultimately, he fell to the floor and crawled on his hands and knees on the bloody 
floor, where he died lying on his back.  Post-mortem, a large statue was brought 
from the pool area and dropped upright on his face.  The statue was found lying 
partly on Richard Larkin’s body.  White powder found on the T-shirt and shorts 
found in the bathroom was consistent with the surface of the white garden statue 
and with the residue from the pool area where the statue had stood.  The trial court 
sustained Larkin’s objections that any testimony by Knox on the meaning of 
 
 
- 13 -
dropping the statue on Richard Larkin’s body and the reason this attack was more 
prolonged was speculative. 
Finally, Knox explained that Myra Larkin was killed first, noting that 
Richard Larkin’s murder was bloodier, but none of his blood was present in the 
living room where Myra Larkin was killed.  In addition, the noise from the violent 
murder of her husband in his office would have alerted her, but she was assaulted 
while she remained seated on a living room chair watching a movie.  The trial 
court sustained the State’s objection to Larkin’s question of whether the listing of 
his father’s murder in the first count of the indictment raised reasonable doubt 
regarding the deaths. 
Two other family members testified.  Ron Larkin, Gregory Larkin’s uncle, 
testified that he visited Larkin on numerous occasions after his arrest.  Gregory 
Larkin told him that on April 11, Gregory worked outside the house building some 
flower boxes and went on a lengthy walk in the neighborhood.  Gregory then 
returned to the house and had dinner with his parents.  Afterwards, Gregory drove 
to Jacksonville, stayed in a hotel overnight, and flew to Mexico the next day.  Ron 
Larkin testified that he tried but failed to locate the hotel at which Gregory stayed, 
and Gregory could not recall the hotel’s name.  Katrina Larkin, Gregory Larkin’s 
sister, testified that when she lived with her parents for a few months in 2005, she 
observed their routine.  Typically, her father was using the computer in his garage 
 
 
- 14 -
office, watching television, or cooking.  Her mother usually drank wine in the 
evening, and Gregory also drank wine several times a week.  With regard to 
Gregory’s visit to her parents’ home in 2009, she testified that his visit occurred 
during the rainy season in Costa Rica, when there was little to no business for the 
family dive shop. 
Larkin called four defense witnesses in his case and conducted the direct 
examinations.  Michael O’Hagen, an acquaintance of Richard Larkin, testified that 
a few days after Easter (April 12, 2009), possibly on April 14, he saw Richard 
Larkin at a convenience store.  They discussed coaching children’s soccer.  On 
cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not recall the exact date and that 
Richard Larkin probably was driving his white SUV that day, as he usually did. 
Moyra Bird-Owens returned to the stand and testified that as a longtime 
friend, she spent a lot of time with the Larkins over many years.  She stated that 
Gregory Larkin had a very good relationship with his parents.  During his latest 
visit, she had travelled with the three of them to Jekyll Island.  Gregory had been 
very helpful, and she did not observe any drug use by him.  In addition, she was 
aware that the Larkins planned to take a trip to Savannah, Georgia, on April 14, 
2009, and had reserved a rental car to travel in a more reliable vehicle than their 
own.  Asked if Richard Larkin had any enemies, she responded that she knew 
Allstate Insurance Company was his enemy, and she did not know if that situation 
 
 
- 15 -
was ever resolved.  Finally, she testified that Gregory sent her a letter from jail in 
which he maintained his innocence. 
Two neighbors of the Larkins also testified for the defense.  Judith Ankerson 
testified that her home faced the victims’ home.  She often saw Richard Larkin 
through his office window when she took her morning walks.  She was uncertain 
of the date, but she believed that she last saw Richard and Myra Larkin on April 
14, 2009, and that she noticed Richard’s office window blinds were closed 
sometime around April 15, which was unusual.  Nancy Lane also had known the 
family for a long time.  The family’s relationships were healthy and loving, and 
they had fun together.  She testified that she did not recall hearing any arguments 
between Gregory Larkin and his parents while he was at home.  She recalled that 
on one visit to her neighbors’ home, Gregory was working on the computer 
looking for employment with dive shops, including businesses in Mexico.  Finally, 
she testified that Allstate Insurance Company was Richard Larkin’s enemy. 
In rebuttal testimony, Sergeant Michelle Christensen of the Nassau County 
Sheriff’s Office testified that the Larkins’ vehicle was in a parking lot of the 
Jacksonville International Airport on April 12 and was also there on April 14.  
Security video from the convenience store for that date showed neither O’Hagen 
nor Richard Larkin.  Further, after learning of the murders, Judith Ankerson, who 
was out of town at the time, contacted authorities about when she last saw the 
 
 
- 16 -
victims.  Sergeant Christensen testified that during the phone conversation with 
Ankerson, she claimed to have last seen Myra Larkin planting flowers at the 
mailbox on April 14, but Ankerson was uncertain of the date.  Sergeant 
Christensen testified, however, that there were no flowers planted around the 
mailbox. 
At the close of the evidence, Larkin affirmed to the trial court that he would 
not testify and had no more witnesses to call.  The trial judge then denied Larkin’s 
motion for judgment of acquittal.  In his closing argument, Larkin argued that the 
small amount of blood found on the clothing from the bathroom—the T-shirt, 
shorts, and socks—was inconsistent with the bloody crime scene and there was no 
proof regarding when those clothes were worn.  Moreover, there were no 
fingerprints on the murder weapon.  In fact, there was no witness, no motive, and 
no clean-up of the scene.  Thus, there was no hard evidence sufficient to support a 
conviction.  Larkin further claimed that he chose to represent himself because his 
right to a speedy trial was violated when the public defender waived it and because 
he had been wrongly accused of the grand theft of his parents’ car. 
After deliberation, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts of first-
degree murder.  The judge renewed the offer of counsel to Larkin, who responded 
that he would think about it.  The trial judge indicated that he would soon hold 
another Faretta hearing. 
 
 
- 17 -
C.  Mental Competence 
At the January 12, 2012, hearing, the trial court renewed the offer of counsel 
to Larkin but he declined.  After the Faretta hearing, the trial court again found 
Larkin competent to waive counsel and that the waiver was knowingly and 
intelligently made.  Morrissey then addressed the trial court, stating that he had just 
concluded that Larkin suffered from a delusional disorder.   He requested that the 
trial court order a mental health evaluation, noting that the motion was based on 
Larkin’s behavior during the trial but providing no specifics.  The trial judge 
ordered a mental health evaluation based solely on Morrissey’s conclusory motion. 
Dr. William Meadows, a forensic psychologist, evaluated Larkin by 
administering two tests—the “Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomology 
(SIMS)” and the “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition 
(MMPI-2)”—and conducting interviews with Larkin and several of his family 
members.  The testing indicated that Larkin was not malingering, and although 
Larkin was impulsive and narcissistic, he did not suffer from psychotic 
disturbances.  The expert concluded, however, that Larkin’s understanding of the 
adversarial nature of legal proceedings, his capacity to disclose pertinent facts to 
counsel, and his capacity to testify relevantly and coherently were unacceptable.  
Further, Dr. Meadows found that Larkin gave an illogical account of the evidence, 
believed the two witnesses who testified in his defense that they had seen his 
 
 
- 18 -
parents alive when Larkin was in Mexico, described a bizarre conspiracy involving 
an insurance company, and believed that his prior counsel were involved in a 
conspiracy to withhold exculpatory evidence.  Accordingly, Dr. Meadows 
concluded that Larkin met the “provisional DSM-IV-TR [Diagnostic and Statistical 
Manual of Mental Disorders] diagnostic criteria for a Delusional Disorder” and 
was thus incompetent to proceed. 
Subsequently, a hearing was held on January 19, 2012, regarding the report.  
Larkin again elected to represent himself, and the trial judge found him competent 
to waive counsel.  The prosecutor argued that Dr. Meadows’ report did not call 
Larkin’s competence into question and that a second evaluation was not necessary.  
The trial judge noted that the evidence cited in the report to support the conclusion 
that Larkin was delusional would require Larkin to disbelieve evidence that he had 
presented at trial and that Larkin’s self-representation at trial contradicted any 
conclusion that he did not understand the legal proceedings.  In addition, the trial 
judge questioned Larkin regarding some of the statements ascribed to him in the 
report.  Then, turning to Morrissey, the judge asked him to provide evidence of 
Larkin’s incompetence.  When Morrissey responded that his motion for a mental 
health evaluation was based on the same behaviors that the judge had observed at 
the trial and again cited no specific examples, the judge stated that unlike 
Morrissey, he had not observed any delusional behavior by Larkin during the trial. 
 
 
- 19 -
After stating that he would reject the competency determination if this were 
not a death case, the trial judge called Dr. Meadows to testify at a hearing.  
Consistent with his report, he opined that Larkin was not competent to proceed.  
Dr. Meadows acknowledged that he was unaware of the degree to which Larkin 
represented himself at trial, such as making opening and closing arguments and 
entering valid objections.  Further, Dr. Meadows stated that some of the collateral 
information, such as the report that Larkin believed in the existence of demons and 
angels on earth, came from Larkins’ family members, and Dr. Meadows did not 
discuss these reports with Larkin.  Dr. Meadows also opined that Larkin was 
delusional with regard to his father being threatened by an insurance company.  
However, when questioned by Larkin at the hearing, Dr. Meadows acknowledged 
that Larkin had told Dr. Meadows about a letter Larkin had received from his 
father, Richard Larkin.  The letter indicated that if anything happened to his father, 
Larkin should look for a video that his father had made regarding his difficulties 
with the insurance company.  It was this video that Larkin believed was being 
withheld from him by prior defense counsel.  Morrissey declined the opportunity to 
question Dr. Meadows. 
The trial court subsequently appointed a second expert, Dr. Alan Waldman, 
a psychiatrist, to examine Larkin, and a brief hearing was held to accept that report.  
Dr. Waldman’s mental health evaluation concluded that Larkin was competent to 
 
 
- 20 -
proceed.  He found that Larkin fully appreciated the charges and the range of 
penalties, understood the adversarial nature of the legal process, and had the 
capacity to disclose pertinent facts to counsel, as he had to the doctor in the 
examination.  Larkin also understood what was needed to exculpate him.  Further, 
Larkin could realistically challenge prosecution witnesses, manifest appropriate 
courtroom behavior, and testify relevantly.  Dr. Waldman opined that Larkin was 
not overtly psychotic or delusional and diagnosed him with a “Personality Disorder 
Not Otherwise Specified.”  Although Larkin believed that there was a conspiracy 
against him for a quick conviction, Dr. Waldman stated that such conspiracy 
beliefs are not uncommon and in this case did not evidence mental illness. 
Because the first two mental health evaluations conflicted, a third expert, Dr. 
Umesh Mahtre, a psychiatrist, evaluated Larkin.  Dr. Mahtre found that the testing 
previously conducted showed no evidence of psychosis and concluded that Larkin 
was competent to proceed.  In addition, he noted that Larkin had no history of 
paranoia or psychiatric problems and that Larkin was not schizophrenic and did not 
suffer from any paranoid personality disorder.  A hearing was held on February 2, 
2012, to accept the third report.  Again the trial judge began with a Faretta inquiry, 
Larkin chose self-representation, and the trial judge found him competent. 
D.  Penalty Phase 
 
 
- 21 -
As in the prior proceedings, Larkin waived counsel in the penalty phase.  
The State declined to present any witnesses, the trial court declined a request by 
two family members that the trial court call them as court witnesses, and Larkin 
declined to present mitigation witnesses and to testify.  After the prosecutor made 
an opening argument and Larkin declined the opportunity to make a statement, the 
trial court called Dr. Meadows as the court’s witness.  Larkin did not conduct the 
examination of Dr. Meadows; instead, the trial judge appointed standby counsel 
Morrissey, pursuant to Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343, 364 (Fla. 2001), to 
question the witness.  
Dr. Meadows testified—consistent with his evaluation—that Larkin was 
intelligent and was not fabricating mental illness, but he was defensive during the 
mental health evaluation.  Dr. Meadows stated that the testing and interview 
demonstrated that Larkin was unwilling to admit to basic human flaws or 
psychological weaknesses.  Such defensiveness, Dr. Meadows opined, may 
indicate that Larkin has psychiatric issues but does not want to be seen as 
psychiatrically impaired.  Moreover, Larkin made statements of a persecutory 
delusional nature.  Larkin’s family members reported that Larkin seemed 
increasingly paranoid over time, stating that Larkin made bizarre statements about 
demons and angels.  In addition, Larkin told Dr. Meadows that he believed his 
attorneys conspired against him.  On the other hand, Larkin had no history of 
 
 
- 22 -
alcohol or drug abuse and no history of paranoia or other psychotic disturbances.  
Larkin was coherent, intelligent, and ran a business, but he was also immature, 
self-centered, and impulsive.  Considering the testing and the other information, 
Dr. Meadows concluded that there was sufficient test data to support a provisional 
diagnosis of a delusional disorder but Larkin was not overtly psychotic. 
After deliberation, the jury unanimously voted for the death penalty as to 
both murders.  The jury was discharged, and the trial court once again renewed the 
offer of counsel, which was declined. 
E.  Spencer Hearing 
At the beginning of the Spencer hearing, the trial judge’s offer to appoint 
counsel was again declined.  See Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688, 690-91 (Fla. 
1993).  A packet of letters from family and friends in support of Larkin was 
presented to the trial court, and three witnesses testified.  Helena Larkin, Gregory 
Larkin’s sister-in-law, showed photos of Richard and Myra Larkin and described 
how they were admired and loved by family and friends.  She also related the 
nightmare experienced by the family in the aftermath of the murders.  Heather 
McLaughlin, the victims’ niece, testified that she sought therapy after the murders.  
She described the murders as an act of evil and said the question of Larkin’s guilt 
had broken the family apart.  Finally, Rick Larkin described how the murders had 
broken the family irreparably apart.  Referring to the letters from family members 
 
 
- 23 -
and others offered to the trial court in mitigation, he called them a gift to Larkin.  
No other statements were presented, and Larkin presented no mitigation evidence. 
F.  Sentencing 
 On March 15, 2012, the trial court sentenced Gregory Larkin to death on 
both counts of first-degree murder.  In the murder of Richard Larkin, the trial court 
found two aggravating factors and accorded them each great weight: (1) Larkin 
had a prior capital or violent felony conviction; and (2) the murder was especially 
heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC).  The first factor was based on the 
contemporaneous murder of Myra Larkin.  In finding the HAC aggravator, the 
court noted that the victim was repeatedly beaten in the head with a baseball bat 
and died from the resulting skull fractures and hemorrhaging.  Moreover, the 
evidence showed that Richard Larkin stood up and turned to face his attacker and 
was injured in his efforts to defend himself from the blows.  Accordingly, death 
was not instantaneous, and Richard Larkin was conscious and aware both of the 
attack and the identity of his attacker. 
The trial court explained that in light of Larkin’s decision not to present 
mitigation evidence during the penalty phase, the record was reviewed for 
evidence to support any of the statutory mitigators.  See § 921.141, Fla. Stat. 
(2009).  Accordingly, the trial judge found that two statutory mitigating factors 
were established and ascribed each the weight indicated: (1) Larkin had no 
 
 
- 24 -
significant history of prior criminal activity (some weight); and (2) Larkin was a 
good son, a hard worker, and rescued some people from drowning (little weight).  
The trial court determined that another statutory mitigator— substantially impaired 
capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or conform to the 
requirements of law—was not established. 
In sentencing Larkin to death for the first-degree murder of Myra Larkin, the 
trial court again found the HAC aggravator and accorded it great weight, citing the 
multiple blows from the baseball bat that resulted in broken bones, brain 
lacerations, and a broken skull.  Moreover, Myra Larkin’s defensive wounds 
evidenced her consciousness during the brutal beating.  The trial court also found 
the prior violent felony aggravator, based on the contemporaneous murder of her 
husband, Richard Larkin, but gave that factor little weight because she was the first 
victim.  Finally, with regard to mitigation, the trial judge made the same findings 
and ascribed the same weights to each factor as he did regarding the murder of her 
husband. 
The trial judge concluded that as to each first-degree murder, the 
aggravating factors far outweighed the mitigating factors that were found to exist.  
Accordingly, he sentenced Larkin to death on both counts of first-degree murder. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
 
 
- 25 -
 
On appeal from his dual convictions and sentences of death, Larkin raises 
the following claims: (A) the trial court committed reversible error by permitting 
Larkin to represent himself during competency proceedings; and (B) Florida’s 
capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 
(2002).  In addition to addressing these claims, we also: (C) review the record to 
determine whether competent, substantial evidence supports the verdict; and (D) 
determine whether the death sentences are proportionate. 
A.  Competency and Self-Representation 
 
Larkin argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when 
the trial court failed to appoint counsel to represent him during a hearing regarding 
his competence to proceed.  We disagree and conclude that neither Dr. Meadows’ 
report nor Morrissey raised a reasonable doubt about Larkin’s mental competence.  
A trial court’s decision regarding a determination of competency is subject to 
review for abuse of discretion, and the trial court’s resolution of factual disputes 
will be upheld if supported by competent, substantial evidence.  McCray v. State, 
71 So. 3d 848, 862 (Fla. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1743 (2012).  Accordingly, 
for the reasons explained below, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its 
discretion by determining that Larkin was competent to continue to exercise his 
right to waive counsel and represent himself during the competency proceedings. 
 
 
- 26 -
 
As we have previously stated, “[i]t is well-settled that a criminal prosecution 
may not move forward at any material stage of a criminal proceeding against a 
defendant who is incompetent to proceed.”  Caraballo v. State, 39 So. 3d 1234, 
1252 (Fla. 2010).  In Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975), the Supreme 
Court stated that “a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the 
capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to 
consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to 
a trial.”  See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(a) (“A person accused of an offense or a 
violation of probation or community control who is mentally incompetent to 
proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded 
against while incompetent.”).  Accordingly, the test for determining a defendant’s 
mental competence is whether the defendant “has sufficient present ability to 
consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and 
whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings 
against him.”  Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960); see § 916.115, 
Fla. Stat. (2009) (providing for appointment of experts “to determine the mental 
condition of a defendant in a criminal case”).  This standard is echoed in Florida 
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211(a)(1).  In making the competency determination, 
the examining expert must consider the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the 
charges and range of potential penalties, understand the adversarial nature of the 
 
 
- 27 -
proceedings, disclose pertinent facts to counsel, behave appropriately in court, and 
“testify relevantly.”  Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.211(a)(2)(A)(vi). 
In this case, Morrissey raised the issue of Larkin’s competence at the 
conclusion of the guilt phase, throughout which Larkin represented himself.  The 
right to self-representation may be exercised only by a defendant who is competent 
and makes a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel.  See Fla. R. Crim. P. 
3.111(d); Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835-36.  Moreover, where the trial court finds a 
defendant has made a knowing waiver of counsel, the court cannot deny an 
unequivocal request for self-representation absent a determination that the 
defendant “suffer[s] from severe mental illness to the point where the defendant is 
not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself or herself.”  Fla. R. Crim. P. 
3.111(d)(3).  In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 177-78 (2008), the Supreme 
Court explained that 
[t]he Constitution permits judges to take realistic account of the 
particular defendant’s mental capacities by asking whether a 
defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally 
competent to do so.  That is to say, the Constitution permits States to 
insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to 
stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness 
to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings 
by themselves. 
In this case, at the time Morrissey moved for a mental competency 
determination, Larkin had continuously met the standard of competence required 
for self-representation, including on the day of the competency hearing.  For 
 
 
- 28 -
example, Larkin argued motions on valid legal grounds, raised valid objections that 
were upheld, conducted both direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and made 
opening and closing arguments to the jury.  Larkin was well-mannered throughout 
the proceedings and was not combative with the trial court or the witnesses. 
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b) provides that if at “any material 
stage” of a criminal case, the trial court, defense counsel, or the State “has 
reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to 
proceed, the court shall immediately” set a competency hearing and may order up 
to three expert examinations of the defendant.  Moreover, a written motion for a 
mental competency evaluation “shall contain a certificate of counsel that the 
motion is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe that the 
defendant is incompetent to proceed” and “a recital of the specific [non-privileged] 
observations of and conversations with the defendant that have formed the basis 
for the motion.”  Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b)(1) (emphasis added).  In this case, when 
Morrissey raised the question of Larkin’s competence, he offered not a single 
specific example to support the claim.  The motion was based on unspecified 
observations and allegedly—but unidentified—illogical decisions that Larkin made 
during the court proceedings.  Thus, the trial court ordered the examination solely 
because Morrissey requested it and not because a “reasonable ground” to doubt 
Larkin’s competence had been demonstrated. 
 
 
- 29 -
 
Larkin contends that error occurred when he was allowed to continue to 
represent himself at the hearing held on the incompetency determination by Dr. 
Meadows.  At the hearing, before Dr. Meadows arrived, the trial judge again asked 
Morrissey for a factual basis supporting his original allegation of incompetence.  
Morrissey could provide none, instead suggesting that the trial judge witnessed the 
unspecified behavior as well.  The trial judge responded that he had not witnessed 
any delusional behavior by Larkin at the trial.  In fact, the judge stated that the 
competency report’s findings were completely contradicted by the events at trial.  
For example, Dr. Meadows’ findings that Larkin lacked an understanding of the 
adversarial nature of the trial and the capacity to testify coherently were clearly 
rebutted by his able self-representation at trial.  Moreover, Dr. Meadows’ 
determination of incompetency was based in part on Larkin’s belief that an 
insurance company had targeted his father and that Larkin insisted people had seen 
his parents alive while he was in Mexico.  However these facts were supported by 
witness testimony at trial.  In addition, Larkin created no disruptions at trial, and 
the trial judge witnessed nothing to indicate that Larkin was delusional.  
Accordingly, the trial court found the report “flimsy at best” and stated that had it 
not been a death penalty case, he would have rejected the determination.  Dr. 
Meadows’ testimony at the hearing did nothing to alter the trial court’s conclusion.  
 
 
- 30 -
Moreover, the other mental health experts who subsequently examined Larkin 
found him competent to proceed. 
In this case, the initial incompetency determination did not raise a 
reasonable doubt regarding Larkin’s competency.  The findings were clearly 
contradicted by the actual events at trial.  Accordingly, we conclude that the trial 
court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Larkin to continue to represent 
himself during the competency proceedings.  
B.  The Ring Issue 
Larkin argues that Florida’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional under 
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).  We have consistently rejected Ring claims 
in cases such as this one, where the jury recommended a sentence of death by a 
unanimous vote.  See Bevel v. State, 983 So. 2d 505, 526 (Fla. 2008).  Moreover, 
we also have previously rejected Ring claims in cases in which one of the 
aggravating factors found is a prior violent felony conviction.  See Frances v. 
State, 970 So. 2d 806, 822 (Fla. 2007).  In this double murder case, the prior 
violent felony aggravator for the contemporaneous murder supports each death 
sentence.  Id.  (“Ring did not alter the express exemption in Apprendi v. New 
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that prior convictions are exempt from the Sixth 
Amendment requirements announced in the cases.  This Court has repeatedly 
 
 
- 31 -
relied on the presence of the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance in 
denying Ring claims.”).  Accordingly, Larkin’s claim has no merit. 
C.  Competent, Substantial Evidence 
Regardless of whether Larkin raises the issue, this Court independently 
reviews the record in death penalty cases to determine whether competent, 
substantial evidence supports the conviction.  Pham v. State, 70 So. 3d 485, 501 
(Fla. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1752 (2012).  “In determining the sufficiency 
of the evidence, the question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light 
most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the existence 
of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Bradley v. State, 787 So. 
2d 732, 738 (Fla. 2001). 
In this case, the evidence showed that Gregory Larkin, the manager of the 
family’s dive shop, lived with his parents during a period of family turmoil 
regarding the financial difficulties and fate of this Costa Rican-based business.  In 
the spring of 2009, Richard Larkin was actively seeking a buyer for the failing 
business, a decision that Gregory Larkin—who would lose his job—vigorously 
opposed.  On April 11, 2009, Myra Larkin went shopping and returned home in the 
late afternoon.  Richard and Myra Larkin apparently ate dinner, and then Mrs. 
Larkin sat down to watch a movie that she had rented that day, while Richard 
Larkin used the computer in his office in the garage.  She was still wearing the 
 
 
- 32 -
same clothes in which she appeared in store security videos earlier that day.  In 
addition, some of the groceries that she had purchased that afternoon were on the 
kitchen counter, including open wine bottles.  Used wine glasses, with Gregory 
Larkin’s DNA on one and Myra Larkin’s on the other, were nearby.  Around 8 
p.m., the last time the home office computer was used, the murderer entered the 
living room, approached Myra Larkin from behind as she sat watching a movie, 
and then beat her with a baseball bat until she lay on the floor and died in a pool of 
blood from the resulting injuries.  The assailant then walked up behind Richard 
Larkin, who sat using his computer in the garage office, and attacked him in the 
same manner, landing multiple blows with a baseball bat, as Richard Larkin 
attempted to rise and defend himself.  As Richard Larkin lay dead on the floor, the 
assailant carried a large statue in from the pool area and dropped it on the victim’s 
face.  On the next morning, April 12, Larkin parked his parents’ car in the parking 
lot of the Jacksonville International Airport, bought a one-way ticket, and flew to 
Mexico.  The bodies of Richard and Myra Larkin were found a week later, on 
April 18.  There were no signs of burglary, and the house was securely locked.  
DNA from blood on clothing—shorts, a T-shirt, and socks—found in the bathroom 
nearest to Gregory Larkin’s bedroom matched the DNA profiles of Richard and 
Myra Larkin, and DNA from the waistband of the shorts indicated that Gregory 
Larkin wore them.  In addition, a white powdery substance, consistent with the 
 
 
- 33 -
pool statue, was found on the T-shirt.  The record shows that Larkin did not contact 
or go to visit his brother on April 17, as initially planned.  Instead, having never 
contacted anyone about his trip, he returned from Mexico to Jacksonville on April 
18.  Then, instead of going to his parents’ home, Larkin checked into an airport 
hotel, where authorities found him.  He told the officers that his car keys had been 
stolen during a robbery in Mexico.  In light of the foregoing, we find that sufficient 
evidence was presented for the jury to find Larkin guilty of two counts of first-
degree murder in the deaths of Richard and Myra Larkin. 
D.  Proportionality 
The death penalty is reserved for the most aggravated and least mitigated 
first-degree murders.  Lebron v. State, 982 So. 2d 649, 668 (Fla. 2008).  In 
conducting a proportionality review, this Court considers the totality of the 
circumstances in the case and compares it with other capital cases to determine 
whether the capital case falls within this category and the death sentence is thus 
warranted.  Moreover, we accept the trial court’s weighing of the mitigating and 
aggravating factors.  Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473, 510 (Fla. 2009).  Proportionality 
review “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances.”  Sexton v. State, 775 So. 2d 923, 935 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Porter 
v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060, 1064 (Fla. 1990)).  Thus, it is a qualitative rather than a 
 
 
- 34 -
quantitative review.  Here, the strength of the aggravating factors and little 
mitigation found in the record support the sentences of death. 
In this case, the trial court sentenced Larkin to death for the murder of his 
parents.  The judge found the same two aggravators applicable to both murders—a 
prior violent felony conviction for the murder of the other parent and HAC.  With 
regard to the first aggravating factor, the trial judge ascribed great weight in the 
death of Larkin’s father but little weight to the same factor in the murder of his 
mother, the first victim.  The HAC aggravator was given great weight as to both 
murders.  Regardless of the weight ascribed by the trial court, however, HAC and 
prior violent felony conviction are deemed two of the most serious aggravating 
circumstances.  See Jackson v. State, 18 So. 3d 1016, 1035 (Fla. 2009) (noting that 
HAC falls in most serious aggravator category); Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 
1087, 1108-09 (Fla. 2004) (finding that prior violent felony conviction is one of the 
most serious aggravators).  Moreover, the trial court found little mitigation, 
ascribing some weight to the statutory mitigator of no significant criminal history 
and little weight to the catchall provision of other mitigating factors in the Larkin’s 
background, noting that Larkin was a good son and a hard worker, and had rescued 
two people from drowning.  Accordingly, the aggravation more than outweighed 
the mitigation here.  In addition, the jury unanimously recommended the death 
penalty for both murders. 
 
 
- 35 -
This Court has affirmed the imposition of the death penalty in comparable 
cases.  In Green v. State, 583 So. 2d 647, 648-49 (Fla. 1991), the defendant killed a 
couple from whom he rented his apartment when they refused to return his late rent 
check, with which he wanted to buy cocaine.  Armed with a butcher knife, Green 
repeatedly stabbed the female victim and went to the back bedroom, where he 
stabbed her husband twenty-eight times.  Id. at 649.  After a new penalty phase, the 
jury recommend death sentences by a ten-to-two vote, and the trial court imposed 
such sentences, finding the following three aggravating factors as to each murder 
and according each great weight: the defendant had a prior capital felony 
conviction; the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain; and the murder 
was especially HAC.  Green v. State, 907 So. 2d 489, 495 (Fla. 2005).  As to each 
murder, the trial judge found two statutory mitigators of moderate weight: 
defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; and 
defendant had an impaired capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.  
The trial judge also found a number of factors under the catchall mitigation 
provision, § 921.141(6), Fla. Stat. (2009), including that Green was “capable of a 
warm and loving relationship; had [a] substantial history of stable and successful 
employment; had experienced a severe personal, social, economic, and health 
decline as a result of a crack cocaine addiction; . . . and had voluntarily turned 
himself in to authorities.”  Green, 907 So. 2d at 495.  In addition, the trial judge 
 
 
- 36 -
gave slight weight to the testimony of two witnesses and moderate weight to 
Green’s letter offered during a Spencer hearing.  Id. 
Similarly, in Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866, 870-71 (Fla. 2011), the trial 
court sentenced the defendant to death for the stabbing deaths of two people in a 
warehouse.  The trial court found the same two aggravators that were applied in the 
instant case—HAC and prior violent felony conviction.  In addition, the court in 
Rigterink found that the avoid arrest aggravator was applicable to one of the 
murders.  Id. at 871 (quoting Rigterink v. State, 2 So. 3d 221, 234 (Fla. 2009)).  
The trial court found that each aggravator carried great weight.  As in the instant 
case, the court found the statutory mitigator of no significant prior criminal history 
and assigned it some weight.  Id. at 871.  The trial court also found twelve factors 
of nonstatutory mitigation.  Id. 
Finally, in Bright v. State, 90 So. 3d 249, 253-54 (Fla.), cert. denied, 133 S. 
Ct. 300 (2012), the defendant killed two men in his home, beating them to death 
with a hammer.  The jury recommended death sentences by an eight-to-four vote 
as to both murders.  Id. at 256.  The trial court also found and weighed the same 
aggravators and mitigators in both murders.  The court found three aggravators of 
great weight: the defendant had a prior violent felony conviction based on a 
robbery; the defendant had a prior violent felony conviction that was based on the 
contemporaneous murder; and the murder was HAC.  Id. at 256-57.  Further, the 
 
 
- 37 -
judge found one statutory mitigator—the murders were committed while defendant 
was under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance—and 
nineteen nonstatutory mitigators—including that defendant had a history of drug 
abuse, had a decade of military service with an honorable discharge, and was a 
good brother and father—to which the trial court ascribed weights varying from 
slight to considerable.  Id. at 257.  This Court found that the evidence presented at 
trial was “consistent with a scenario in which Bright waited until the victims were 
asleep, and then attacked them.”  Id. at 258. 
After reviewing the facts and relevant cases, we hold that the death 
sentences imposed in this case are proportionate. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 
Having reviewed the issues presented by Larkin, as well as the sufficiency of 
the evidence to support the convictions and the proportionality of the sentences of 
death, we affirm the judgment and sentences of death in this case. 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur.  
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED 
 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Nassau County,  
Robert Mallory Foster, Judge - Case No. 45-2009-CF-000448-AX 
 
 
 
- 38 -
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Nada M. Carey, Assistant Public 
Defender, Tallahassee, Florida,   
 
for Appellant  
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Renee M. Rancour, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tallahassee, Florida,    
 
for Appellee