Stanek-Cousins v. State

Citations: 912 So. 2d 43; 2005 WL 2086210Docket: 4D05-1129

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 31, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Catherine Stanek-Cousins appealed her manslaughter conviction and a fifteen-year sentence for the shooting death of her husband, Sean Cousins, after a trial in Palm Beach County. The case was transferred from the Fifth District upon determining proper venue, as the indictment indicated the murder could have occurred across multiple counties. Stanek-Cousins, along with co-defendant Timothy Koile, was initially indicted for first-degree murder, and the State intended to seek the death penalty. 

Prior to trial, she sought to change venue from Osceola County to Palm Beach County, arguing the indictment's ambiguity regarding the crime's location. The trial court granted this motion, allowing her to be tried in Palm Beach County. 

Her public defender moved to withdraw, citing concerns over the right to a speedy trial, scheduled to expire on May 20, 2003, and the challenge of adequately preparing for a trial in West Palm Beach. The court denied the motion, emphasizing that Stanek-Cousins insisted on maintaining her speedy trial right, which complicated the appointment of a new attorney. 

The trial commenced on May 19, 2003, resulting in a guilty verdict for manslaughter, while Koile pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The evidence presented indicated a troubled marriage and an extramarital affair involving Stanek-Cousins and Koile. The appellate court affirmed her conviction and sentence but reversed the restitution order regarding the amount.

Sean had a life insurance policy for $500,000, later increased to $1,000,000 with Cousins as the primary beneficiary. Koile testified that Cousins expressed a desire for Sean to be dead and conspired with him and Bakovic to murder Sean for the insurance money. Bakovic was offered $500,000 for the job and was provided $1,500 by Cousins for an untraceable weapon. A planned murder attempt in a movie theater parking lot on May 6, 2001, failed when Bakovic did not arrive. The following day, Cousins summoned Koile to her garage, where he found Sean shot in the stomach. After refusing to kill Sean upon Cousins' demand, she shot Sean in the head. Bakovic later assisted in cleaning up the scene and disposing of Sean's body in a creek in Osceola County. Evidence from phone records corroborated the timeline of events. The jury convicted Cousins of manslaughter, and she was sentenced to fifteen years in prison with restitution ordered for Sean's family and estate. On appeal, Cousins raised several issues, including the trial court's handling of the venue transfer to the fifteenth circuit. The court affirmed the rulings as Cousins had received the fair trial she requested.

Cousins opted for a venue change to the fifteenth circuit shortly before her capital trial, maintaining her right to a speedy trial. The trial court granted this election, and the trial and sentencing were conducted in the new venue. Any potential error related to her speedy trial demand was invited by Cousins, as established in Ashley v. State, meaning she cannot benefit from it on appeal. The trial judge accompanied the case to the fifteenth circuit per Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.180(b), and the fifth district appropriately transferred the appeal to this court due to lack of jurisdiction. Cousins argued that a venue change is ineffective until the court file is transferred, referencing Vasilinda v. Lozano. However, it was argued that the trial was effectively held in the fifteenth circuit as it took place in a courtroom there, regardless of the clerk's physical presence from the ninth circuit. Furthermore, Cousins did not demonstrate any prejudice from this arrangement, nor did she support her claim that her constitutional right to elect venue included selecting the prosecuting state attorney or the public defender’s office. The court affirmed the venue transfer rulings, finding no abuse of discretion or harmful procedural error.

Cousins also contended that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering pleadings to retain the ninth circuit's case style during trial, asserting that this indicated the trial remained in the ninth circuit. The court clarified that this was not a jurisdictional ruling but merely an administrative instruction due to the lack of a new case number in Palm Beach County. Cousins did not show reversible error regarding this instruction. However, the trial court acted without jurisdiction when determining restitution after Cousins filed her Notice of Appeal. The restitution hearing occurred post-appeal, leading to a written order that imposed significant financial obligations on Cousins and others.

A trial court lacks jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing or issue a restitution order once a notice of appeal has been filed, even if restitution was previously ordered at sentencing with the amount reserved. This principle is established in Marro v. State and Craig v. State, leading to the conclusion that the restitution order must be struck down. However, since the trial court reserved jurisdiction for a restitution hearing, restitution can be reimposed upon remand. It is advised that, when a hearing is scheduled post-appeal notice, the appropriate course is to request the appellate court to relinquish jurisdiction for the trial court to conduct the hearing.

Regarding Cousins’ additional appeal issues, the court finds them unpersuasive and does not address them in detail. The decision is partially affirmed and partially reversed, with a remand for further proceedings. Specific notations clarify that Cousins had previously sought review regarding the public defender's travel, which is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Other issues raised by Cousins, such as the failure to transmit files for venue transfer and the validity of the transfer itself, are also rejected, with references to additional cases providing context and distinctions. The court notes that the current case was not moved between circuits during the trial, unlike the cited Kohut case, and updates to the law may have changed the applicability of Kohut.