Case Name: Samuel D. GRANBERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-11-02
Citations: 967 So. 2d 1044
Docket Number: No. 5D06-3988
Parties: Samuel D. GRANBERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SAWAYA, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 967
Pages: 1044–1049

Head Matter:
Samuel D. GRANBERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D06-3988.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 2, 2007.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Henry T. Swann, III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
MONACO, J.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in giving the forcible felony exclusionary charge described in section 776.041(1), Florida Statutes (2002), as part of the standard self-defense jury instruction. The appellant, Samuel Granberry, argues that because his only defense at trial was "self-defense," the trial court's error in giving a misleading and confusing instruction was funda mental. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.
The State charged Mr. Granberry with one count of second degree murder with respect to the shooting death of Alphonzo Scott, and one count alleging that Mr. Granberry unlawfully carried a concealed firearm. Without detailing the evidence that was adduced during the course of the trial, suffice it to say that we agree with Mr. Granberry that he presented sufficient evidence of self-defense to reach a jury on that issue. After both sides rested, defense counsel asked the trial court to include an instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force. The court agreed to do so.
In giving the jury instructions, the court explained that the jury panel would have to decide whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force. When discussing "self-defense" with the jury, however, the trial court described the forcible felony exception to self-defense, as follows:
. [Hjowever, the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find: the defendant was attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony; or the defendant initially provoked the use of force against the defendant, .
The defense made no objection to the instruction. The written instructions were almost identical to those delivered orally. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of both second degree murder and carrying a concealed weapon. Mr. Granberry timely appealed the judgment and sentence imposed for those offenses.
Mr. Granberry accurately argues that under the wealth of case law governing this matter it was fundamental error for the trial court to give the forcible felony exclusionary charge because there was no evidence that he was engaged in any separate forcible felony other than the one charged. An independent forcible felony is generally defined as one that invokes the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual. See Barnes v. State, — So.2d -, 2007 WL 2316841 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug.15, 2007); Flynn v. State, 947 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Williams v. State, 937 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Barnes v. State, 932 So.2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Craven v. State, 908 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Hawk v. State, 902 So.2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cleveland v. State, 887 So.2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Davis v. State, 886 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 898 So.2d 81 (Fla.2005). As the concurring opinion points out, we are bound by our prior precedent and must follow it. Here, the only other crime charged, carrying a concealed weapon, does not qualify as a second separate forcible felony. See Williams, 937 So.2d at 773 (stating that merely carrying a concealed firearm does not involve use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual).
Where a defendant is charged with a single forcible felony for which he or she claims self-defense, it is fundamental error to instruct the jury on the forcible felony exception to self-defense because to do so involves circular reasoning and essentially negates the defense. See, e.g., McJimsey v. State, 959 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Martinez v. State, 933 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), review granted, 959 So.2d 717 (Fla.2007); Estevez v. Crosby, 858 So.2d 376, 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Certainly an instruction that nullifies a defendant's sole defense must affect the fairness of the proceeding. See Cardenas v. State, 867 So.2d 384 (Fla.2004); Grier v. State, 928 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), revieiv denied, 952 So.2d 1191 (Fla.2007). It is for this reason that the forcible felony instruction only applies in situations where the defendant is charged with a separate independent forcible felony as defined by section 776.08, Florida Statutes (2006). Since all fundamental error by its very nature is harmful error, and since Mr. Granberry was not charged with a second forcible felony separate from the one for which he asserted a claim of self-defense, a reversal is compelled.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence and remand to the trial court for a new trial. We also certify conflict with Martinez v. State, 933 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), review grunted, 959 So.2d 717 (Fla.2007), which concluded there was no fundamental error in instructing the jury on the forcible felony exception when self-defense was asserted and where there was only one forcible felony charged.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, J., concurs.
LAWSON, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. We recognize that the procedural path by which this case reached our court is not as cut and dried as we are presenting it here. We have intentionally abbreviated the discussion on this aspect as it only adds confusion. For the information of those who are curious, however, the original appeal in this case was disposed of by Granberry v. State, 860 So.2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We granted the appellant a belated appeal in Granberry v. State, 919 So.2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The current appeal arises from the belated appeal.
. See Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla.2002).