Case Name: Terence Maurice McCLAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 162 So. 3d 296
Docket Number: No. 5D13-3703
Parties: Terence Maurice McCLAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ORFINGER, LAWSON and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 162
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Terence Maurice McCLAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D13-3703.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 20, 2015.
Rehearing Denied April 24, 2015.
Terence Maurice McClain, Jasper, pro se.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Samuel Perrone, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Terence McClain appeals from his convictions and sentences for attempted second-degree murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and two counts of aggravated battery. Regarding the attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery convictions, the jury also found that McClain actually carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm during the commission of the crimes and that he possessed and discharged the firearm, inflicting great bodily harm. This appeal was conducted in accordance with the Anders procedure. Having examined the record, and finding no reversible error, we affirm. See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987). We also write to address the argument found in McClain's pro se brief premised upon the First District's holding in Floyd v. State 151 So.3d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), rev. granted, 2014 WL 7251662 (Fla.2014). We have not overlooked the argument, but conclude that McClain could not establish fundamental error in this case even if we were to follow Floyd, because McClain did not advance a self-defense theory at trial.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, LAWSON and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. This appeal follows a second trial ordered as a result of McClain v. State, 109 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). During his first trial, McClain was represented by counsel and did pursue a theory of self-defense. On retrial, McClain chose to represent himself and defended solely on the theory that someone else fired the shots that harmed the victim.