Title: Cannon v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC13-46
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 2015

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC13-46 
____________ 
 
MARVIN CANNON, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
[September 24, 2015] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
This case is before the Court on appeal from a judgment of conviction of 
first-degree murder and a sentence of death.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 
3(b)(1), Fla. Const.  For the reasons stated below, we affirm the convictions and 
sentences, including the sentence of death. 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
Sean Neel and Zechariah1 Morgan were coworkers at Florida State Hospital 
and had been friends for over twenty years.  In the fall of 2010, Mr. Morgan and 
                                          
 
 
1.  The record presents some inconsistency as to the spelling of this victim’s 
first name.  We will refer to him as Mr. Morgan. 
 
- 2 - 
Mr. Neel became involved in the purchase of corn, known as “deer corn,” from the 
defendant, Marvin Cannon.  On December 24, 2010, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Neel 
drove to a convenience store to pick up Cannon.  Mr. Neel understood the purpose 
of this trip to be the completion of a corn purchase.  While waiting at the store, the 
two men noticed two people walking down the street toward them.  Mr. Neel had 
never met or spoken with Cannon, but was familiar with Cannon’s father.  Because 
of Cannon’s resemblance to his father, Mr. Neel recognized Cannon as one of the 
two men walking toward the truck, but did not recognize the other man.  Mr. Neel 
would later discover that the second man’s name was Anton2 McMillian.  Cannon 
and McMillian walked to Mr. Morgan’s side of the truck, and Mr. Morgan began 
to explain that there was no additional room in the truck for anyone other than 
Cannon.  Mr. Morgan was driving a four-door, Ford “King Ranch” truck with a 
crew cab.  Cannon told them McMillian was his cousin from New York and that 
Cannon wanted him to ride with them also.  After some discussion, Mr. Morgan 
agreed, and he and Mr. Neel began clearing the back seat by stacking the 
newspapers, jackets, and other items in the center of the back seat so Cannon and 
McMillian could sit on either side.  Among these items was a knife that Mr. 
                                          
 
 
2.  There is some inconsistency in the record as to the spelling of the 
codefendant’s first name.  We will refer to him as “McMillian.” 
 
- 3 - 
Morgan placed in the center console.3  When the seats were cleared, Cannon sat on 
the back passenger side behind Mr. Neel and McMillian sat directly behind Mr. 
Morgan on the driver’s side. 
At Cannon’s direction, Mr. Morgan drove onto Interstate Highway 10 (I-10).  
The four men conversed while driving and eventually turned off of I-10 onto Flat 
Creek Road.  While they were heading west on Flat Creek Road, Cannon informed 
them that they had missed their turn, and Mr. Morgan made a U-turn.  As Mr. 
Morgan drove eastbound for about two miles, he inquired of Cannon about 
Cannon’s familiarity with the area and how Cannon could let them travel two miles 
past where they were supposed to have turned, to which Cannon responded, “oh, 
we was talking” and “it just slipped my mind.”  During the drive, Mr. Neel was 
“quartered around” in the front passenger seat with his head turned, looking 
directly at McMillian and conversing with him.  Cannon eventually directed them 
onto a little dirt road, described by Mr. Neel as a “little pig trail,” in an overgrown, 
wooded area.  As soon as they turned onto this dirt road, Mr. Neel heard Cannon 
fumbling in his jacket and saw Mr. Morgan turn around and look directly at 
Cannon.  Cannon then began to talk as though he were on the phone; however, Mr. 
                                          
 
 
3.  The front seats were bucket seats, not bench seats, and there was a gap 
between them containing a center console. 
 
- 4 - 
Neel was unsure whether Cannon had a cell phone because Mr. Neel was only 
looking at McMillian and did not turn to see Cannon. 
Cannon then directed Mr. Morgan to turn behind an old, abandoned house.  
As Mr. Morgan made this turn, Mr. Neel glanced behind the house and 
simultaneously heard Cannon moving in the backseat.  Suddenly, Mr. Neel was 
stabbed twice in the neck from behind.  He testified that upon the first stab, he 
“looked right back at . . . McMillian,” who was sitting still in the same spot as 
before.  Mr. Neel testified that although he could not see around his seat to see 
Cannon stabbing him, he knew it was Cannon because Mr. Neel was “looking right 
at [McMillian]” and “could tell 100 percent” that McMillian was not the one 
stabbing him. 
As soon as Mr. Neel was stabbed, Mr. Morgan “looked dead at [Cannon]” 
and began to scream—“[l]ike a scared-to-death holler.”  Mr. Morgan floored the 
gas pedal, and Mr. Neel grabbed the knife in the console and also grabbed for the 
door handle.  The truck was now “all over the place. . . . fishtailing everywhere,” 
and when the door sprung open, Mr. Neel flew out of the truck, losing his shoes, 
his hat, and the knife he had in his hand.  When Mr. Neel got back on his feet, he 
looked back in time to see the truck plow into a tree next to an old shed.  He did 
not see anyone at or near the truck and began running back up the dirt road to get 
help. 
 
- 5 - 
Upon reaching Flat Creek Road, Mr. Neel saw some people at a nearby 
home and ran toward them, yelling that they needed to “get the guns” and that his 
friend still needed help.  The home belonged to the Renfroes.  Upon seeing Mr. 
Neel, Vera Renfroe called 911 and ran toward Mr. Neel to help him.  Some of the 
men from the home, who had retrieved their firearms, saw a man standing at the 
edge of the dirt road.  Mr. Neel glanced in that direction, but could not say for 
certain which of the two men from the truck it could have been.  Mrs. Renfroe also 
noticed this individual standing there looking around, but was not close enough to 
be able to identify him.  The man eventually turned and ran in another direction 
toward a pond. 
Alan Parrot, one of the men who had retrieved a firearm, drove his car 
toward the pond and found McMillian near the pond, looking confused and trying 
to run away.  Mr. Parrot exited his vehicle and held his gun on McMillian until the 
police arrived.  Shortly thereafter, Officer Michael Lawrence of the Gretna Police 
Department arrived.  After Officer Lawrence handcuffed and put McMillian in the 
back seat of his patrol car, he and Mr. Parrot ran over to where Mr. Morgan’s truck 
had crashed into the tree.  They saw Mr. Morgan’s body on the ground near the 
driver’s side door, checked his pulse, and determined that he was deceased.  Other 
officers began to arrive on the scene and eventually someone noticed smoke 
 
- 6 - 
coming from Mr. Morgan’s vehicle.  When the passenger-side door was opened, 
the cab of the truck was engulfed in flames. 
Lead Investigator Robbie Maxwell of the Gadsden County Sheriff’s 
Department had McMillian removed from the back of Officer Lawrence’s patrol 
car and photographed.  One of the photographs documented some drops of blood 
on McMillian’s face.  McMillian was then transferred to the patrol car of 
Investigator Brian Faison of the Gadsden County Sheriff’s Department for 
transport to the Sheriff’s Office.  During transport, McMillian heard talk on the 
police radio about a search for a knife and told Investigator Faison that the knife 
they were looking for was in the back of the other patrol car.  Upon inspection, 
Investigator Maxwell discovered a long, black-handled knife and a can or bottle 
opener on the back floorboard of the patrol car.  The knife had a broken tip, which 
was later determined by a fiber and physical match analyst from the Florida 
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to match a triangular piece of metal 
found in Mr. Morgan’s head. 
Also on the scene was Detective Eric Bryant with the State Fire Marshal’s 
Office.  He testified that there was only minimal fire damage to the front of the 
truck with no fire damage to the hood or engine compartment.  By this evidence, 
he excluded as the cause of the fire the truck crashing into the tree.  The greatest 
degree of damage occurred in the rear seats of the truck, and Detective Bryant 
 
- 7 - 
concluded that the fire’s point of origin was the rear passenger compartment 
behind the driver’s seat.  He eliminated accidental causes, such as smoking and 
electrical or mechanical malfunctions, and opined that under the circumstances, the 
only cause of the fire was human, not accidental, means.  No accelerants were 
used, and the truck’s fire retardant seats led Detective Bryant to conclude that the 
fire’s ignition point was the miscellaneous combustibles on top of the rear seats. 
Among the officers at the scene was Deputy Joseph Barnes, a canine handler 
with the Gadsden County Sheriff’s Department.  He had his tracking dog take a 
scent off of Mr. Morgan’s body to track anyone who had touched him, and the dog 
alerted positive for the scent on a fence near I-10.  Deputy Barnes was joined by 
handler teams from Apalachee Correctional Institution, and the officers soon 
noticed a footprint going across a field near the fence.  Eventually, the dogs 
tracked about a half-mile to a mile away from the crime scene, across the interstate 
and into another field, where the officers found Mr. Morgan’s wallet and some of 
its contents, including a credit card, strewn about the ground.  The officers called 
someone else to secure the scene and kept tracking for about ten miles along the 
interstate toward a gas station. 
 
- 8 - 
Cannon was next seen at a Shell gas station near the interstate.  The gas 
station attendant testified that a nervous, sweaty man had approached the window4 
on foot and asked her to get him something to drink.  He also asked her to leave 
her shift early to give him a ride.  When she refused, Cannon began asking other 
customers for a ride and was eventually successful in obtaining one.  Investigator 
Maxwell showed up right after Cannon left.  The attendant told him what had 
occurred and showed him the security footage from the store’s video camera, 
depicting the man she had described.  Investigator Maxwell recognized Cannon as 
the man in the video.5  Two days later, officers received a tip that Cannon was 
located in a motel off of Pat Thomas Parkway.  Officers entered Cannon’s motel 
room and took him into custody.  He was wearing the same shirt as that observed 
on him in the security footage. 
Dr. Lisa Flannagan, a forensic pathologist with the Medical Examiner’s 
Office, testified that she conducted the autopsy on Mr. Morgan’s body and 
determined the cause of death to be multiple stab wounds.  Mr. Morgan suffered at 
least thirty major stab wounds and some additional, more superficial injuries.  He 
                                          
 
4.  The gas station was closed for the night, so the door was locked and the 
attendant was assisting customers through a window. 
5.  Investigator Maxwell testified that Cannon had been “personally 
familiar” to him for a number of years. 
 
- 9 - 
sustained four wounds to his face, one of which passed through the cheek and into 
the mouth cavity.  X-rays of the wounds revealed a small triangular piece of metal 
embedded in the right side of his forehead, which was later determined to be a 
piece from the tip of the knife found in the back of the patrol car where McMillian 
had been sitting. 
The most severe and fatal of Mr. Morgan’s wounds included a neck 
wound—which injured the carotid artery and the jugular vein, but would not have 
been immediately incapacitating—and stabs wounds to the chest and upper back, 
which injured the pulmonary vein and punctured both lungs, causing them to 
collapse.  There were several defensive wounds on his arms and hands and a 
curved configuration of small abrasions on the back of his left hand that were 
consistent with a bite mark or teeth impressions. 
The medical examiner testified that Mr. Morgan’s wounds could have all 
been inflicted by the knife with the broken tip.  However, she could not rule out 
another knife having caused some of the injuries.  She testified that, based on the 
extent of the injuries, Mr. Morgan was likely “upright” and “struggling” for a least 
part of the attack.  Lastly, the medical examiner did not believe all of the injuries 
were sustained while Mr. Morgan was in the truck “because he’s, obviously, 
moving and fighting and the injuries being in so many different locations on both 
sides of the neck, the left shoulder area, the forearms, his back, and his chest.”  She 
 
- 10 - 
testified that there was no way to determine the sequence in which the wounds 
were inflicted. 
Other testimony established that the murder occurred on a plot of land rented 
by Cannon’s father for farming.  There was never any corn found stored on the 
property.  The knife Cannon used to stab Mr. Neel was never conclusively 
identified.  A black, butcher-type knife contained blood for which Mr. Morgan, 
McMillian and Cannon were excluded as contributors, but the data was insufficient 
to determine Mr. Neel’s possible contribution.  Mr. Morgan’s blood was found on 
Cannon’s shirt, McMillian’s clothing and shoes, and McMillian’s face.  The 
mixture of DNA on Mr. Morgan’s back pockets excluded Cannon and Mr. Neel as 
contributors, but included Mr. Morgan and McMillian as possible contributors.  
The limited DNA evidence from the blood found under Mr. Morgan’s fingernails 
excluded Cannon and Mr. Neel as possible contributors, but did not provide 
enough information to determine McMillian’s possible contribution. 
As to Mr. Morgan, the jury found Cannon guilty of first-degree murder—on 
theories of both premeditation and felony murder—and robbery with a deadly 
weapon.  The jury also convicted Cannon of attempted first-degree premeditated 
murder and attempted armed robbery as to Mr. Neel and found Cannon guilty of 
arson for the burning of Mr. Morgan’s truck.  At the conclusion of the penalty 
phase, the jury recommended death by a vote of nine to three. 
 
- 11 - 
The court conducted a Spencer6 hearing on November 15, 2012, at which the 
defense introduced Cannon’s school records and a letter from his girlfriend.  The 
defense also presented a licensed psychologist, Dr. Terence Leland, who testified 
that Cannon’s functional abilities amounted to the low average range of 
intelligence rather than the borderline range because of the very wide disparity 
between his verbal IQ score of 66 and his nonverbal IQ of 88.  Dr. Leland testified 
that Cannon’s overall full-scale IQ score of 77 “is probably a slight underestimate” 
of his overall abilities.  He also diagnosed Cannon with depressive and anxiety 
disorders, not otherwise specified, because Cannon’s symptoms were insufficiently 
severe to diagnose major depression or generalized anxiety disorder.  Also, the 
parties stipulated that the trial court could consider McMillian’s case file and 
specifically requested that it consider the psychological evaluation reports 
regarding McMillian’s health.  The court had adjudicated McMillian “incompetent 
to proceed because of his mental retardation” on May 17, 2011.  Approximately 
fifteen months later, the court conducted another competency hearing and found 
that McMillian remained incompetent to stand trial. 
The trial court followed the jury’s death recommendation, finding that the 
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.  The court found five 
                                          
 
6.  Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). 
 
- 12 - 
aggravating circumstances: (1) Cannon was on felony probation at the time of the 
murder (great weight); (2) Cannon was previously convicted of a violent felony 
(very great weight); (3) the murder was committed during a robbery/arson/for 
financial gain (merged) (moderate weight); (4) the murder was especially heinous, 
atrocious or cruel (HAC) (substantial weight); and (5) the murder was committed 
in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner, without any pretense of moral or 
legal justification (CCP) (great weight). 
The trial court rejected all of the statutory mitigating factors as not proven.  
As nonstatutory mitigating, the trial court found that Cannon demonstrated 
appropriate courtroom behavior (minimal weight); did not resist arrest (minimal 
weight); has limited education (very little weight); applied for and obtained 
farming grants in his youth, despite his educational shortcomings (very little 
weight); worked hard as a farmer for the family business (very little weight); was a 
good provider to his family and step-children (very little weight); is a loving 
person to his siblings and their children (very little weight); has a low IQ (very 
little weight); came from an emotionally impoverished family background (very 
little weight); experienced the imprisonment of his siblings during his adolescent, 
teen, and young adult years (very little weight); experienced “other mental health 
diagnoses and symptoms” (very little weight); and testified for the State in the case 
that resulted in his prior violent felony convictions (very little weight). 
 
- 13 - 
ANALYSIS 
Cannon’s claims on appeal are as follows: (1) the trial court improperly 
doubled the aggravators; (2) the trial court erred in applying HAC to Cannon; (3) 
the court erred in sua sponte modifying the jury instruction on attempted voluntary 
manslaughter; the State’s evidence is insufficient as to Cannon’s convictions for 
(4) robbery, (5) attempted robbery, and (6) arson; (7) the trial court erred in 
responding to a jury question during deliberations; (8) the court erroneously 
admitted hearsay statements into evidence; and (9) Cannon’s death sentence is 
disproportionate.  These issues are addressed in turn below. 
I.  Doubling of Aggravators 
As his first issue, Cannon claims that the trial court erred in using the violent 
nature of his prior felony conviction to support both the weight assigned to the 
felony probation aggravator and to support applying the prior violent felony 
aggravator.  “A trial court’s ruling on an aggravating circumstance is a mixed 
question of law and fact and will be sustained on review as long as the court 
applied the right rule of law and its ruling is supported by competent, substantial 
evidence in the record.”  Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1133 (Fla. 2001).  Cannon 
does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to the trial court’s finding of 
the felony probation aggravator, only that the violent nature of his prior armed 
 
- 14 - 
carjacking conviction was used both in assigning weight to that aggravator and in 
finding the prior violent felony aggravator, resulting in improper doubling. 
“Improper doubling occurs when aggravating factors refer to the same 
aspect of the crime.”  Green v. State, 641 So. 2d 391, 395 (Fla. 1994).  However, 
“the facts in a given case may . . . support multiple aggravating factors so long as 
they are separate and distinct aggravators and not merely restatements of each 
other.”   Banks v. State, 700 So. 2d 363, 367 (Fla. 1997).  In other words, “where 
these two aggravating factors are not based on the same essential feature of the 
crime or of the offender’s character, they can be given separate consideration.”  
Agan v. State, 445 So. 2d 326, 328 (Fla. 1983). 
In its sentencing order, the trial court noted that Cannon had been convicted 
of armed carjacking and armed kidnapping and had begun to serve the five-year 
probationary portion of his sentence on October 4, 2009.  Thus, the court found 
that the instant capital felony, which occurred on December 24, 2010, was 
committed by a person who was on felony probation at the time of the crime.7  The 
trial court found that the felony for which Cannon was on probation was a violent 
felony and accordingly, assigned the aggravator great weight. 
                                          
 
 
7.  § 921.141(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). 
 
- 15 - 
The trial court also found that the prior violent felony aggravator8 had been 
established based on both the prior carjacking episode and the contemporaneous 
convictions for the attempted murder and attempted robbery of Mr. Neel.  In 
assigning weight to the aggravator, the court found that this Court established in 
Bright v. State, 90 So. 3d 249, 260-261 (Fla. 2012), that it is improper to weigh 
each prior and contemporaneous violent felony separately.  Thus, the trial court 
stated that it would “consider conviction of a prior felony only as a single 
aggravating circumstance, assess weight for each form of proof and assign weight 
only to the more serious form of proof.”  The court then outlined the evidence of 
the convictions and concluded that the carjacking conviction was the weightier, 
more serious form of proof, so the court assigned the prior violent felony 
aggravator “very great weight” based on the prior carjacking conviction. 
This Court has consistently rejected claims of improper doubling where the 
prior violent felony aggravator referred to the conviction and the felony probation 
aggravator “referred to the defendant’s status at the time of the murder.”  Patrick v. 
State, 104 So. 3d 1046, 1066 (Fla. 2012); Muhammad v. State, 494 So. 2d 969, 976 
(Fla. 1986) (“We have consistently rejected the argument that these two factors 
improperly double aggravating circumstances.”); see also Rose v. State, 787 So. 2d 
                                          
 
 
8.  § 921.141(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). 
 
- 16 - 
786, 801 (Fla. 2001); Hildwin v. State, 727 So. 2d 193, 196 (Fla. 1998) (rejecting 
improper doubling argument despite “prior violent felony” and “under sentence of 
imprisonment” aggravators being based on same offense); Waterhouse v. State, 
429 So. 2d 301, 307 (Fla. 1983) (rejecting doubling argument because prior 
conviction and parole status “were two separate and distinct characteristics of the 
defendant, not based on the same evidence and the same essential facts”), receded 
from on other grounds, Owen v. State, 696 So. 2d 715, 720 (Fla. 1997).  That is 
exactly what happened here.  Cannon’s claim of improper doubling is meritless 
because the finding of the felony probation aggravator was based on Cannon’s 
status at the time of the murder, while the prior violent felony aggravator was 
based on the existence of the prior conviction itself. 
Cannon is correct that the trial court used the violent nature of his carjacking 
conviction to assign weight to the felony probation aggravator.  This, however, was 
not error.  A finding of violence is not necessary for the finding of the felony 
probation aggravator.  See § 921.141(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010).  Thus, the violent 
nature of the carjacking was not used to determine whether the felony probation 
aggravator had been established, but to determine the weight to be assigned to the 
aggravator.  Furthermore, the weight assigned to aggravating factors is within the 
trial court’s discretion and “is subject to the abuse of discretion standard.”  Buzia 
v. State, 926 So. 2d 1203, 1216 (Fla. 2006).  Here, Cannon’s prior convictions 
 
- 17 - 
were violent,9 and the assignment of great weight to the felony probation 
aggravator was not an abuse of discretion.  Cannon is not entitled to relief as to this 
issue.10 
II.  HAC Aggravator 
Cannon next claims that the trial court erred in applying the HAC aggravator 
to his case.  The trial court’s ruling will be sustained on appeal as long as it is 
based on the right rule of law and supported by competent substantial evidence.  
Ford, 802 So. 2d at 1133.  As found by the trial court in the instant case and 
conceded by the parties, there is competent, substantial evidence that the manner in 
which Mr. Morgan was murdered qualifies as especially heinous, atrocious, or 
                                          
 
 
9.  Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277, 304 (Fla. 2009) (referring to carjacking 
and kidnapping as “violent felonies”); Floyd v. State, 913 So. 2d 564, 577 (Fla. 
2005) (same). 
 
10.  We also address, for the sake of clarity, the trial judge’s belief that he 
was required, under Bright, to determine a separate weight for each underlying 
felony conviction and then assign weight to the prior violent felony aggravator 
based only on the more serious of the prior convictions.  In Bright, we found error 
where the trial court “found the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance 
twice and accorded it great weight twice”—once for the defendant’s prior robbery 
conviction and once based on the contemporaneous murder in that case.   90 So. 3d 
at 260-61.  We explained that “[i]f a defendant has multiple convictions for prior 
violent felonies, the trial court can find only a single aggravating circumstance, but 
it may give that circumstance greater weight based upon the existence of multiple 
convictions.”  Id. at 261.  In other words, multiple convictions may serve as the 
basis for the prior violent felony aggravator as long as the court only finds the 
aggravator once and only assigns it one weight—although that one weight may be 
based on the existence of more than one prior conviction. 
 
- 18 - 
cruel.  Mr. Morgan sustained at least thirty stab wounds to his head, face, neck, 
arms, chest, and back.  One of his facial wounds indicated that the knife traveled 
through his cheek and into his mouth cavity.  He had several defensive wounds on 
his hands and arms and a small curve of abrasions on the back of his left hand that 
was consistent with a bite mark.  The medical examiner determined, based on Mr. 
Morgan’s injuries, that Mr. Morgan was alive and likely “upright” and “struggling” 
during at least part of the attack.  His carotid artery and jugular vein were injured, 
causing him to lose blood and eventually consciousness.  The medical examiner 
testified that this wound would not have been immediately incapacitating and that 
Mr. Morgan could have lived with this injury for “a couple of minutes.”11 
The trial court found that Cannon’s stabbing of Mr. Neel permitted 
application of the HAC aggravator to Cannon for the stabbing of Mr. Morgan even 
assuming McMillian alone actually stabbed Mr. Morgan.  The court stated that 
substantial evidence was consistent with McMillian stabbing Mr. Morgan, but also 
found that none of that evidence established that McMillian stabbed Mr. Morgan 
and Cannon did not.  The court concluded that even though no evidence directly 
                                          
 
 
11.  This Court has “repeatedly upheld the HAC aggravating circumstance in 
cases where the victim has been viciously stabbed numerous times,” Perez v. State, 
919 So. 2d 347, 379 (Fla. 2005), even “where the medical examiner has 
determined that the victim was conscious for merely seconds,” Francis v. State, 
808 So. 2d 110, 135 (Fla. 2001). 
 
- 19 - 
indicated that Cannon personally stabbed Mr. Morgan, overwhelming evidence 
demonstrates that Cannon fully intended the commission of both crimes including 
the manner of Mr. Morgan’s death. 
This Court has held that HAC cannot be applied vicariously to a defendant 
who did not direct the manner of the killing or know the manner in which the 
murder would occur.  See Perez, 919 So. 2d at 380-81; Williams v. State, 622 So. 
2d 456, 463 (Fla. 1993); Omelus v. State, 584 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 1991).  
However, we have also upheld the application of HAC to defendants who were 
ringleaders or dominant actors in the crime and personally took specific actions 
that caused the victim’s fear, emotional strain, and terror prior to the victim’s 
death.  See, e.g., Lugo v. State, 845 So. 2d 74, 112-13 (Fla. 2003) (upholding HAC 
where the defendant directed the crimes; kidnapped, bound, and gagged the victim; 
questioned her about assets; and instructed the codefendant to inject her with horse 
tranquilizers when she resisted); Cave v. State, 727 So. 2d 227, 229 (Fla. 1998) 
(finding sufficient evidence of HAC where the defendant was the leader of the 
crime and personally kidnapped the victim at gunpoint, placed her beside him in 
the backseat, and heard her pleas for her life during the 15-minute car ride to the 
murder location, after which her removed her from the car and turned her over to 
his codefendants who then stabbed and shot her); Copeland v. State, 457 So. 2d 
1012, 1015 (Fla. 1984) (upholding HAC where the defendant personally 
 
- 20 - 
committed the robbery of a convenience store, kidnapped the cashier, and then 
raped her before she was murdered). 
In the instant case, the trial court found that the evidence proved, beyond a 
reasonable doubt, that Cannon was the sole catalyst and dominant actor in these 
crimes.  Cannon planned the entire incident.  He came to the meeting prepared 
with a means to kill—namely a knife—which he used to initiate the acts of 
violence by stabbing Mr. Neel.  Cannon chose an isolated, overgrown area for the 
meeting, located on his father’s plot of land, and was the sole individual directing 
the parties to that location.  Further, although Mr. Neel understood the purpose of 
the meeting to be completing a corn transaction, no corn was found at the location, 
potentially indicating Cannon’s alternate purpose for the meeting. 
Cannon’s dominance is further demonstrated by McMillian’s actions after 
the incident.  McMillian wandered to a nearby pond and although panicked and 
frantic, had remained standing next to the pond until apprehended.  McMillian was 
also cooperative with the police and volunteered information about the knife.  
Lastly, McMillian has a low IQ, has been intellectually disabled since his youth, 
has been found incompetent to stand trial, and had no prior involvement with either 
man—as neither Mr. Neel nor Mr. Morgan knew McMillian until Cannon 
introduced him.  Following the rationale of Lugo, Cave II, and Copeland, we find 
 
- 21 - 
no error in applying HAC to Cannon because he personally orchestrated the 
method of the heinous murder and initiated the plan for the crime. 
III.  Jury Instruction on Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter 
Cannon argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury on attempted 
voluntary manslaughter in two ways:  (1) by, sua sponte, modifying the standard 
jury instruction in an attempt to correct a Montgomery12 error, and (2) by failing to 
include, in this modification, a reinstruction on justifiable or excusable homicide.  
The State concedes that the trial court erred in its reinstruction of the jury.13  
However, “[j]ury instructions are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule 
and, absent an objection at trial, can be raised on appeal only if fundamental error 
occurred.”  Montgomery, 39 So. 3d at 258 (internal quotation marks omitted).  In 
this case, Cannon did not object to the trial court’s erroneous instruction and 
concedes that the error is not fundamental because attempted voluntary 
                                          
 
 
12.  State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010). 
13.  See Williams v. State, 123 So. 3d 23, 24 (Fla. 2013) (finding it 
fundamental error to give standard jury instruction on attempted manslaughter by 
act, which requires jury to find that defendant committed act intended to cause 
death, where defendant is convicted of offense not more than one step removed 
from attempted manslaughter); Pena v. State, 901 So. 2d 781, 787-88 (Fla. 2005) 
(finding error for trial court to omit instruction on excusable or justifiable 
homicide, but such error not fundamental where offense of which defendant was 
convicted is two or more steps removed from offense for which jury was 
improperly instructed). 
 
- 22 - 
manslaughter is two steps removed from attempted first-degree murder.  As such, 
Cannon’s claim is procedurally barred, and he is not entitled to relief. 
Cannon nonetheless cites to Williams v. State, 395 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th 
DCA 1981), and Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979), to argue 
that his claim was not waived by his failure to object because he was not provided 
with an opportunity to object outside the presence of the jury under Florida Rule of 
Criminal Procedure 3.390(d).  However, our review of the record demonstrates that 
nothing prevented Cannon from objecting to the trial court’s modification and 
requesting a sidebar conference outside of the jury’s presence.  Under Cannon’s 
interpretation, a defendant could intentionally fail to object to a court’s instruction 
of the jury and avoid the procedural bar on appeal by arguing that the trial court 
did not provide an opportunity to object.  Such gamesmanship defeats the purpose 
of Rule 3.390(d), which is to put the trial court on notice of potential errors in 
charging the jury. 
IV.  Trial Court’s Response to Jury Question 
After the jury retired to deliberate, it submitted the following written 
question to the trial court: 
As to count 4, attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, we’re not 
clear as to what the law states.  Can we assume or do we have to cite 
specific evidence.  By assume, we mean because he took Morgan’s 
wallet, but no clear attempt was made to take Neel’s wallet, et cetera, 
prior payments of corn, which I’m not sure – 
 
 
- 23 - 
After reading the question and inquiring of the State and the defense, the trial court 
decided on the following answer:  “It makes more sense just to say you’re not 
required to cite evidence.  You are required only to complete the verdict form.  
Your responsibility is to determine if the evidence proves each element [beyond a 
reasonable doubt].”  The record demonstrates that defense counsel objected to the 
trial court’s answer.   
Generally, the feasibility and scope of any reinstruction of the jury “resides 
within the discretion of the [trial] judge.”  Garcia v. State, 492 So. 2d 360, 366 
(Fla. 1986).  Discretion is only abused “when the judicial action is arbitrary, 
fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused 
only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.”  
Armstrong v. State, 73 So. 3d 155, 173 (Fla. 2011) (quoting White v. State, 817 
So. 2d 799, 806 (Fla. 2002)).  Nevertheless, the jury instructions must not be 
confusing, contradictory, or misleading.  Id. 
The defense argued that the court should have given the “single defendant, 
multiple counts” instruction again, which reads:  
A separate crime is charged in each [count of the information] 
[indictment] [information] and, although they have been tried 
together, each crime and the evidence applicable to it must be 
considered separately and a separate verdict returned as to each.  A 
finding of guilty or not guilty as to one crime must not affect your 
verdict as to the other crime(s) charged. 
 
 
- 24 - 
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.12(a).  Although including this sentence might have 
helped the trial judge to address the defense’s interpretation of what the jury was 
asking, the instruction given by the judge was a correct and complete statement of 
the law and was not confusing, contradictory or misleading.  The judge’s answer 
and interpretation of the jury’s question was not such that no reasonable person 
would adopt his view, thus we find no abuse of discretion in answering the jury’s 
question. 
Although there was no abuse of discretion here, we caution that the better 
practice when faced with a confusing or ambiguous question from the jury would 
be to inquire of the jury as to the meaning of its question.  Such a procedure would 
allow the court to provide the most accurate and complete response possible.  See 
Slinsky v. State, 232 So. 2d 451, 453-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (suggesting that trial 
court, when faced with a jury request during deliberations, “should have advised 
counsel of it and re-convened court with defendant in attendance.  Depending upon 
the nature and scope of the jury’s question, the court could then recall or offer to 
recall the jury into the courtroom for inquiry and the rendition of a response to 
their request”).  This method would seem especially appropriate in cases like this 
one where the jury question itself was an incomplete sentence, subject to differing 
interpretations. 
V.  Hearsay Statements/Confrontation Clause 
 
- 25 - 
Cannon asserts that a significant portion of Mr. Neel’s testimony is 
inadmissible hearsay and that the trial court erred in permitting its introduction into 
evidence.  Cannon also alleges, in one sentence of his initial brief, that this testimony 
violated his right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 
(2004).  Each of Cannon’s claims will be addressed separately below. 
A trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of 
discretion.  Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 278 (Fla. 2003).  However, the 
question of whether a statement is hearsay is a matter of law and is subject to de 
novo review on appeal.  Burkey v. State, 922 So. 2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 
2006).  Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while 
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 
asserted.”  § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010).  Rather than indicating the specific 
statements to which he objects, Cannon has provided us with only a general 
summary of Mr. Neel’s testimony.  We thus deny most of this claim as 
insufficiently pled.  See, e.g., Wyatt v. State, 78 So. 3d 512, 521 & n.6 (Fla. 2011) 
(denying claims as insufficiently pled because, in challenging gruesome photos, 
counsel failed to specifically address which photos he was challenging and in 
challenging the jury instructions, counsel failed to discuss which specific 
instructions were allegedly erroneous or what specific challenges trial counsel 
should have raised); Ferrell v. State, 29 So. 3d 959, 976 (Fla. 2010) (denying 
 
- 26 - 
challenge that counsel erroneously waived the defendant’s presence at all pretrial 
proceedings as insufficiently pled where defendant failed to identify any critical 
stage of his trial from which he was involuntarily absent).  Because we have 
identified three statements during Mr. Neel’s trial testimony to which Cannon 
objected, we choose to address that portion of his claim.  The three statements are 
(1) Mr. Morgan telling Mr. Neel that Cannon had corn to sell, (2) Mr. Morgan 
prepaying for a second purchase of corn from Cannon,14 and (3) Mr. Morgan 
telling Mr. Neel about Mr. Morgan’s “aggravation” in dealing with Cannon.  
Cannon is only entitled to relief if the admission of these statements was erroneous 
and not harmless. 
Harmless error is error for which “there is no reasonable possibility that the 
error contributed to the conviction.”  State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 
1986).  Cannon is not entitled to relief as to any of these statements because their 
admission into evidence was harmless.  Even without these three details, the jury 
still heard that Mr. Morgan and Mr. Neel met Cannon at a gas station and that Mr. 
Neel understood the purpose of this meeting to be completing a purchase of corn.  
Further, Cannon was identified as the seller by Mr. Neel’s properly admitted 
testimony, which demonstrated that Cannon was the guiding force behind this 
                                          
 
 
14.  We note that Cannon objected to this statement not as hearsay, but on 
the grounds of a lack of foundation or personal knowledge. 
 
- 27 - 
transaction.  Upon meeting at the gas station, Cannon had to convince Mr. Morgan 
to let McMillian, Cannon’s codefendant, ride with them; Cannon directed Mr. 
Morgan to drive to a remote, wooded area; and Cannon not only brought a knife 
with him on this ride, but also used that knife to initiate the attack by stabbing Mr. 
Neel in the neck.  Therefore, there is no reasonable possibility that the admission 
of these three statements contributed to the conviction. 
Cannon also argues that the admission of Mr. Neel’s testimony violates his 
right of confrontation because the statements were testimonial under Crawford.  
However, the statements at issue here are not testimonial in nature.  They were not 
“made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to 
believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.”  Franklin v. 
State, 965 So. 2d 79, 90 (Fla. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).  They are 
simply nontestimonial statements to a friend about trivial daily matters, not 
involving any potential criminal proceeding.  Cf. id. at 91 (citing cases and holding 
that victim’s spontaneous statements to friend after being shot were not 
testimonial).   Accordingly, Cannon is not entitled to relief. 
VI.  Sufficiency of the Evidence 
Cannon next claims that there is insufficient evidence to convict him of 
robbery, attempted robbery, and arson.  Whether a defendant contests the 
sufficiency of the evidence against him or not, this Court has a mandatory 
 
- 28 - 
obligation to independently determine whether there was sufficient evidence to 
sustain the jury’s verdict.  See Kalisz v. State, 124 So. 3d 185, 214 (Fla. 2013), 
cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1547 (2014); Wheeler v. State, 4 So. 3d 599, 605 (Fla. 
2009).  “Whether the evidence is sufficient is judged by whether it is competent 
and substantial.”  Phillips v. State, 39 So. 3d 296, 308 (Fla. 2010).  However, if the 
State’s evidence of guilt is wholly circumstantial, “not only must the evidence be 
sufficient to establish each element of the offense,” but it must also be 
“inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence proposed by the 
defendant.”  Twilegar v. State, 42 So. 3d 177, 188 (Fla. 2010).  Our duty on appeal 
is “to review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing theory and to 
sustain that theory if it is supported by competent substantial evidence.”  Orme v. 
State, 677 So. 2d 258, 262 (Fla. 1996). 
Cannon argues that the State’s evidence was insufficient to sustain his 
conviction for the robbery of Mr. Morgan.  At trial, defense counsel moved for a 
judgment of acquittal as to this count based on a lack of evidence.  The trial court 
denied the motion. 
“Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which 
may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, 
with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or 
the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the 
taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. 
 
 
- 29 - 
§ 812.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2010).  The standard jury instruction also includes the 
requirement that the stolen property be “of some value.”  Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 
(Crim.) 15.1; see Holliday v. State, 781 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  
However, the State is not required to prove an exact value for the property taken.  
See McKinney v. State, 66 So. 3d 852, 857 (Fla. 2011) (finding that the offense of 
“grand theft” has an element that “robbery” does not—the requirement that the 
State show the value of the property taken).  Even if Mr. Morgan’s wallet, which 
was found on the path Cannon took to flee the scene of the stabbing, contained no 
money, it still has inherent value.  See, e.g., Monlyn v. State, 894 So. 2d 832, 836 
(Fla. 2004) (finding crime of robbery established by defendant’s taking of victim’s 
wallet, even if no cash was actually found therein); Woodel v. State, 804 So. 2d 
316, 319, 322 (Fla. 2001) (upholding robbery conviction for theft of victim’s 
wallet containing victim’s identification and credit cards). 
Because the State’s evidence of armed robbery was wholly circumstantial,15 
the State was required to introduce evidence sufficient to rebut any reasonable 
                                          
 
 
15.  There was no witness testimony regarding the events that transpired 
after Mr. Neel’s escape from the truck, which is when the robbery occurred.  See 
Twilegar, 42 So. 3d at 188-89 (“Direct evidence is that to which the witness 
testifies of his own knowledge as to the facts at issue.  Circumstantial evidence is 
proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that 
the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quoting Davis v. State, 90 
So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956))).  Also, Mr. Morgan’s wallet was found not in 
Cannon’s possession, but scattered along Cannon’s escape route. 
 
- 30 - 
hypothesis of innocence proposed by Cannon.  See Twilegar, 42 So. 3d at 188.  
Here, Cannon has not proposed any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.  The 
murder occurred in a remote area, and there was not a great deal of time that 
passed between the murder, police officers’ response to the scene, and McMillian’s 
apprehension.  Soon thereafter, the police, with canine units, began to track the 
route Cannon took to leave the scene, and during that tracking they recovered the 
victim’s wallet and some of its contents.  It is not reasonable to propose, for 
example, that another individual happened upon Mr. Morgan’s body, took his 
wallet, and traveled along Cannon’s exact escape route, discarding the wallet and 
its contents along the way.  No reasonable hypothesis of innocence exists as to the 
robbery of Mr. Morgan.  See, e.g., Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1982) 
(rejecting, as unreasonable, defendant’s hypothesis that because victim’s bodies 
were left overnight in a wooded area, a passerby could have taken their money and 
jewelry), superseded by statute on other grounds, ch. 96-290, § 5, ch. 96-302, § 1, 
Laws of Fla., as recognized in Merck v. State, 763 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2000).  The 
robbery conviction is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and Cannon is 
not entitled to relief.16 
                                          
 
16.  We also affirm the conviction for arson as it is supported by competent, 
substantial evidence, but vacate the attempted robbery conviction based on 
insufficient evidence.  As to arson, Detective Bryant testified that the fire was 
caused by human, not accidental, means and originated in the rear passenger 
compartment behind the driver’s seat.  Cannon and McMillian were seated in that 
 
- 31 - 
Cannon was convicted for the first-degree murder of Mr. Morgan on theories 
of both premeditation and felony murder.  He was also convicted of attempted 
first-degree premeditated murder as to Mr. Neel.  The evidence of felony murder 
consists of three underlying felonies: the attempted murder of Mr. Neel, the 
robbery of Mr. Morgan, and arson.  Any one is sufficient on its own to form the 
basis for Cannon’s conviction for felony murder. 
A jury can infer premeditation from circumstantial evidence such as “ ‘the 
nature of the weapon used, the presence or absence of adequate provocation, 
previous difficulties between the parties, the manner in which the homicide was 
committed, and the nature and manner of the wounds inflicted.’ ”  Bradley v. State, 
787 So. 2d 732, 738 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Norton v. State, 709 So. 2d 87, 92 (Fla. 
1997)).  Premeditation is “a fully formed conscious purpose to kill” and “may be 
formed a moment before the act,” as long as it exists long enough for the defendant 
to understand the nature of the act and its probable result.  Woods v. State, 733 So. 
2d 980, 985 (Fla. 1999); Buckner v. State, 714 So. 2d 384, 387 (Fla. 1998). 
Here, Cannon brought a knife with him and used that knife to stab Mr. Neel.  
Cannon’s stabbing of Mr. Neel was not provoked in any way, nor does the record 
                                          
 
area of the truck.  This is sufficient evidence to support Cannon’s arson conviction.  
As to attempted robbery, there was no evidence of any desire to rob Mr. Neel.  We 
vacate that conviction because stabbing Mr. Neel in the neck, without more, is not 
competent, substantial evidence of attempted robbery. 
 
- 32 - 
demonstrate any provocation for the brutal attack on Mr. Morgan.  Mr. Neel’s 
injuries were the result of a surprise attack initiated while the other unwitting 
victim, Mr. Morgan, was driving and unable to defend his friend.  Mr. Morgan’s 
extensive and incapacitating injuries support the jury’s finding of premeditation.  
As to the manner in which the homicide was committed, the medical examiner 
testified that Mr. Morgan suffered at least thirty stab wounds, all while struggling 
and fighting and even possibly driving during some of the attack.  As additional 
support for the finding of premeditation, Cannon chose a remote, wooded area as 
the group’s destination, and despite Mr. Neel’s understanding of the purpose of the 
trip, no corn was found at this location, indicating Cannon’s possible alternative 
purpose for directing the drive to that area.  We conclude that Cannon’s 
convictions for first-degree and attempted first-degree murder are supported by 
competent, substantial evidence. 
Cannon’s hypothesis of innocence as to first-degree murder is that 
McMillian killed Mr. Morgan.17  However, Cannon can be held responsible for 
first-degree murder either directly or as principal.  “[I]n order to be convicted as 
principal for a crime physically committed by someone else, a defendant must both 
intend that the crime be committed and do some act to assist the other person in 
                                          
 
 
17.  Cannon does not set forth a hypothesis of innocence as to the attempted 
first-degree murder. 
 
- 33 - 
actually committing the crime.”  Brown v. Crosby, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1318 
(S.D. Fla. 2003).  In this instance, Cannon’s conscious intent is demonstrated by 
his choice of a remote location; the fact that no corn was found at that location, 
thereby exposing Cannon’s possible deception in directing Mr. Morgan to that 
area; and the fact that Cannon brought and used a knife during the events.  In 
addition, Cannon’s act of stabbing Mr. Neel clearly began the acts of violence.  
Lastly, the trial court found that Cannon was the dominant actor and sole catalyst 
of the crimes.  We agree and find that competent, substantial evidence exists to 
support Cannon’s convictions of first-degree and attempted first-degree murder.  
Orme, 677 So. 2d at 262 (upholding trial court’s conclusion that evidence 
supported State’s theory because although evidence was conflicting, under 
circumstantial evidence standard of review, trial court’s conclusion was supported 
by competent substantial evidence). 
VII.  Proportionality 
Proportionality review is not a quantitative analysis, counting the number of 
aggravators and mitigators, but a qualitative review of the underlying basis for 
each aggravating and mitigating factor and of the totality of the circumstances, 
comparing the case to other capital cases with similar mitigating and aggravating 
circumstances.  See Gregory v. State, 118 So. 3d 770, 785-86 (Fla. 2013).  Cannon 
argues that McMillian’s intellectual disability may make McMillian ineligible for 
 
- 34 - 
the death penalty and that McMillian’s resulting disparate sentence makes 
Cannon’s death sentence disproportionate.  The parties stipulated that the issue of 
McMillian’s eligibility for the death penalty because of his intellectual disability 
was unresolved at the time of trial.  However, such determination is not necessary 
here because Cannon was the more culpable defendant. 
Disparate treatment of a codefendant who is equally as culpable as or more 
culpable than the defendant can render the defendant’s sentence disproportionate.  
Henyard v. State, 689 So. 2d 239, 254 (Fla. 1996).  However, disparate treatment is 
justified when the defendant is the more culpable actor in the crime.  Larzelere v. 
State, 676 So. 2d 394, 407 (Fla. 1996); Hannon v. State, 638 So. 2d 39, 44 (Fla. 
1994) (finding death sentence proportionate where less culpable codefendants 
received less severe punishment).  As outlined above, Cannon was the driving 
force and dominant actor in this case.  McMillian, who seemed stunned by the 
course of events, is not equally culpable.  Therefore, disparate treatment would be 
justified.  We find that death is a proportionate sentence here.  See, e.g., Farina v. 
State, 801 So. 2d 44, 48, 56 (Fla. 2001); Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135, 1148-49 
(Fla. 2009).   
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm Cannon’s convictions and sentences for 
first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, robbery, and arson. 
 
- 35 - 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, 
JJ., concur. 
CANADY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED.   
 
CANADY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I concur in the affirmance of the first-degree murder, attempted first-degree 
murder, robbery and arson convictions, and of the sentence of death.  I dissent, 
however, from the reversal of the attempted robbery conviction.  I would affirm 
that conviction.    
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Gadsden County,  
Johnathan Eric Sjostrom, Judge - Case No. 202010CF000663BXXXMX 
 
Baya Harrison, III, Monticello, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Charmaine Millsaps, Assistant Attorney 
General, and Patrick M. Delaney, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee