Case Name: Carlos ZELLARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-01-09
Citations: 707 So. 2d 345
Docket Number: No. 97-364
Parties: Carlos ZELLARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 707
Pages: 345–349

Head Matter:
Carlos ZELLARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-364.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 9, 1998.
Order Granting Rehearing March 20,1998.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robért A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
W. SHARP, Judge.
Zellars appeals, from his conviction for attempted. aggravated battery, after a jury trial, and. his departure sentence. upward from the guidelines of 45 months in prison. We affirm the conviction but remand for resentencing.
Zellars claims that the trial 'judge erred by not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's ease and at the conclusion of the defense case. He argues that there was no evidence or- insufficient evidence to prove' that he intended to cause the victim, Tamika Roland, great bodily harm, permanent- disability or permanent disfigurement as required by sec-, tion 784.045(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes. Although this is a close case, we think the evidence was sufficient to allow the trial judge to submit it to the jury.
The evidence presented during the state's case viewed in a manner to uphold the trial judge's decision, was that Zellars - commenced the altercation with Tamika Roland by grabbing her bottom three times, despite her protests and threat to throw her soda on him if he did not stop. They were at an intersection where a number of other teenagers were hanging out.' When he did not stop, Tomika threw the soda and jumped into a Mend's car.
Zellars jumped into the car after her and started choking her with his hands. He was 23-years-old at the time, and she was 15. She testified he had his hands on her neck from two to three minutes. She was unable to push him off and could not yell out and scream because she could not breathe. When the other teenagers noticed what was happening, one ran over to another male, and urged him to intervene. He did so, and pushed Zellars away from Tamika.
Then the two men got into a fight in the car and outside, resulting in the rear window being kicked out. As soon as possible, the driver sped off with Tamika in the front passenger seat. She drove to Tamika's aunt's house. At that point, Tamika testified she was unable to move. Fearful that her neck might have been damaged, they put her on top of the car and called for emergency help. The ambulance driver and paramedics strapped her to a board and took her to an emergency room for x-rays and further treatment.
The emergency room doctor who treated Tamika testified her neck had not been broken, but she had suffered a bruised neck. He also testified that it is possible for a strong person to break a victim's neck by choking, or to crush the victim's trachea or larynx. These injuries could be serious and life-threatening.
Tamika's mother also testified. She said the defendant had spoken to her on the telephone and asked her to drop the charges. Shé said he admitted choking Tamika. He also apologized.
Zellars testified for the defense. He denied grabbing Tamika's bottom. He said he merely tapped her on her leg in a playful manner. He claimed she threw the soda at him and he grabbed the soda and threw it back on her. Then he was grabbed from behind by someone and beaten up. He denied he had ever put his hands around her neck, and that he hurt Tamika in any way. He stated he had no intent to cause Tamika great bodily harm. He also denied he made any telephone call to Tamika's mother in which he admitted any wrong-doing.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury could have (and did) choose to disbelieve Zellars' protestations of innocence, thereby establishing grounds for the jury's finding on intent to cause the victim great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement. At the conclusion of the state's case, proof of Zellars' intent was circumstantial, and stemmed from the other witnesses' testimony about his actions. He was much larger and older than the victim; the victim was strangled for three minutes and could not cry out or breathe; and he was only stopped from continuing to strangle her by the intervention of another man. We think the question of his intent in this case was properly resolvable by the jury. See State v. Gee, 624 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Sten- za, 453 So.2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fletcher v. State, 472 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1985).
However, we reverse the sentence imposed in this case and remand for resentenc-ing under the guidelines. We do not think that the record supports the reasons given by the trial judge for an upward departure sentence. Zellars' prior conviction for aggravated battery, coupled with this offense, does not create an escalating pattern of criminal conduct. Glenn v. State, 623 So.2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Browning v. State, 625 So.2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Further, the record fails to establish the times Zellars committed other prior offenses (grand theft auto and unlawful possession of a controlled substance — both non-violent offenses) in relation to the battery offenses.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.
COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.
HARRIS, J., dissents with opinion.
. § 784.045(l)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (1995).
. See Gudinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953, 962 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 345, 139 L.Ed.2d 267 (1997); Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685 (Fla.1995); DeAngelo v. State, 616 So.2d 440 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1097, 116 S.Ct 823, 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996); State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989); Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974); T.S. v. State, 675 So.2d 196, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); K.O. v. State, 673 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); A.B.G. v. State, 586 So.2d 445, 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
. See Spinkellink v. State, 313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3227, 49 L.Ed.2d 1221 (1976).