Johnathan Alcegaire appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and death sentences stemming from a triple homicide in Polk County in 2016. The Supreme Court of Florida affirms these convictions and sentences, asserting jurisdiction under Florida Constitution Article V, Section 3(b)(1).
Key facts include that on January 6, 2016, David Washington, Eneida Branch, Angelica Castro, and Felix Campos were residing together in a Lakeland triplex. Washington and Branch, a couple, had been living there the longest, while Castro had just moved in two days prior. Campos, the only survivor, had known Washington since summer 2015 and lived with them briefly before the incident.
On the morning of the murders, Washington, Branch, and Castro returned home around 4 a.m. Campos, still in bed, witnessed three men arriving in a van and entering the residence after Washington opened the door. Campos recognized two of the men as Alcegaire and Jamaal Smith from a prior visit. Campos observed Smith shoot him in the face before witnessing the assailants beat and shoot Washington and hear the gunshots that killed Branch and Castro.
The assailants ransacked the home before leaving. Campos, pretending to be dead, later checked on his housemates, found them deceased, and sought help, resulting in his hospitalization. Autopsy results confirmed that all three victims died from gunshot wounds, with Washington sustaining two fatal shots and showing signs of having been beaten.
Branch suffered two gunshot wounds, one to her right cheek and another behind her left ear, the latter being fatal. She also experienced blunt force trauma, with a nine-millimeter bullet recovered from her head. Dr. Nelson indicated that Branch could have spoken and moved after the cheek wound. Castro was shot in the back of the head, resulting in severe brain damage, likely while lying face down.
The investigation revealed that the murders were drug-related, with Campos, the sole survivor, providing descriptions of the assailants but not their names. Surveillance footage identified a U-Haul van linked to the crime, which was located in Miami two days post-murder. Washington and Andrew Joseph, Alcegaire's brother, had substantial ties, with evidence showing Washington's frequent travel between Lakeland and Miami. The victims’ cell phones were found nearby, and Washington’s phone contained significant communication with Joseph, including money transfer receipts.
Campos admitted to selling drugs for Washington during Washington’s absence and gave him $500 upon his return. Joseph was linked to the U-Haul van through rental records, corroborated by cell phone and bank records, with ammunition found in the van. Campos initially struggled to identify Joseph in a photo lineup but later recognized him as having visited Washington's residence.
Joseph was arrested as he left his apartment, where investigators found Alcegaire's belongings and similar latex gloves. Campos later identified Alcegaire in a new photo lineup, citing him as present during the attack. Alcegaire was arrested while getting a haircut to remove his dreadlocks. A straw hat found in Joseph's car matched one worn by Alcegaire in photos taken shortly before the murders. Evidence further established Alcegaire’s connections to both Washington and the murders, including a text message from Washington to Alcegaire that coincided with Alcegaire's visit to Lakeland.
Alcegaire was observed displaying a nine-millimeter or .40 caliber firearm, while another person filled a latex glove with ammunition. Witnesses confirmed Alcegaire's presence at Washington's residence, where he wore dreadlocks. His visit was substantiated by cell phone records indicating contact with Washington eighteen times that day and his phone connecting to a tower near Washington’s home. On January 5, 2016, the day before the murders, Alcegaire's phone records showed his location at the U-Haul rental site during Joseph’s van rental, and he communicated with Joseph at that time. Surveillance footage captured the U-Haul entering and exiting the Monte Carlo apartments on the evening of January 5 and early January 6. The van entered the complex at 9:41 p.m., shortly before Alcegaire arrived at Joseph’s apartment. Around 12:15 a.m., Alcegaire left with the U-Haul and returned an hour later with Smith; they were seen entering Joseph’s apartment. At 1:45 a.m., they left the apartment, and footage showed them in an elevator, with Alcegaire carrying zip ties. The U-Haul exited the complex at 1:51 a.m. Toll records confirmed the van’s travel from Miami to Lakeland, with photos capturing the driver in a straw hat and a passenger in a ball cap. Alcegaire's phone connected to a tower near Cypress Creek Toll Plaza at 2:21 a.m. Later that morning, Alcegaire and Smith returned to the Monte Carlo apartments, exiting with a white trash bag. The van was returned to the rental location by 12:27 p.m. on January 6, having traveled 551 miles. After the murders, Alcegaire attempted to erase his call logs and text messages from his phone, but law enforcement recovered data, including a text from Washington containing an address and a series of web searches related to the murders and firearms.
At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal regarding Alcegaire's possession of a firearm, but he was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder (both premeditated and felony murder) for the deaths of Washington, Branch, and Castro; attempted first-degree murder of Campos; burglary with assault/battery; conspiracy to commit armed robbery; conspiracy to commit first-degree murder; tampering with physical evidence; and robbery. During the penalty phase, the State aimed to establish aggravating factors for each murder, which included prior capital felony convictions, commission of murder for pecuniary gain, murder during a robbery with a firearm, and murder characterized as cold, calculated, and premeditated without justification. The State used evidence from the guilt phase and victim impact statements, while the jury was instructed not to consider victim impact as an aggravating factor. Despite Alcegaire's refusal to present mitigating evidence or a closing argument, the jury was instructed on potential mitigating circumstances, including his minor role as an accomplice, his age (25), and other life factors. The jury found all aggravating factors unanimously and recommended the death penalty for the three murders. Alcegaire also declined to present mitigation during his Spencer hearing, yet his defense counsel argued additional mitigating circumstances in a sentencing memorandum. The trial court's sentencing order detailed its findings on aggravating factors, attributing great weight to prior convictions and the premeditated nature of the murders, and moderate weight to the robbery aspect merged with pecuniary gain.
The trial court identified several mitigating circumstances regarding the defendant, Alcegaire, but assigned little to no weight to most of them. Key points included: his minor role as an accomplice in a first-degree murder (no weight), his age of twenty-five at the time of the murder (little weight), and claims of acting under extreme distress (no weight). The jury did not hear any mitigation evidence (no weight), and while it was established that he did not cause the deaths and declared his innocence, these were also given no weight. He showed good behavior in jail (little weight) and moderate courtroom behavior (established, moderate weight). The court noted the victim was a drug dealer but assigned little weight to this fact. Alcegaire received a death sentence for each murder and additional sentences for other crimes, including life imprisonment and various terms for conspiracy and robbery.
In his direct appeal, Alcegaire raised five issues, including a challenge to the trial court's summary denial of his motion for a new trial based on post-trial statements from Campos. The court denied this motion, questioning its jurisdiction due to Alcegaire’s earlier notice of appeal. Additionally, Alcegaire contested prosecutorial comments made during closing arguments, claiming they denied him a fair trial. Only one comment was objected to, and the court reviewed the others for fundamental error due to the lack of contemporaneous objections. Alcegaire also argued that cumulative errors from the prosecutor's comments affected the fairness of the trial, prompting an examination of all comments to assess their cumulative impact.
Alcegaire contends that the prosecutor improperly referenced facts not in evidence during closing arguments, particularly regarding a conversation between Smith and Washington prior to Washington's shooting. The prosecutor suggested that Smith had received over $500 from David, which led to a failure to search for more money, and implied that Smith and Washington were on a mission related to this money. Alcegaire argues that there was no testimony confirming the exact dialogue, but the prosecutor maintained that the statements were a legitimate interpretation of the evidence presented. Witness Campos testified about Smith's actions during the altercation, including counting Washington's money and physically assaulting him, corroborated by autopsy findings of injuries consistent with a beating.
Alcegaire also challenges the prosecutor's characterization of Washington's relationship with Branch, claiming it misrepresented the facts. However, it was established that Washington and Branch were in a relationship, living together, and Washington referred to Branch as his wife. The prosecutor's argument aimed to counter the defense's assertion that only Smith committed the murders, suggesting that Washington's inaction contradicted that claim.
Additionally, Alcegaire asserts that the prosecutor improperly bolstered Campos's testimony by discussing his demeanor, suggesting he feared for his life, and claiming Campos worked diligently to identify suspects during photo lineups. Each of these assertions was deemed without merit. Specifically, regarding Campos's demeanor, the prosecutor argued that his physical presentation on the stand reflected the effects of his injuries and lack of treatment, asking the jury to consider these factors when evaluating his credibility as a key witness.
The trauma physician testified that Campos sustained significant jaw injuries affecting his ability to eat, swallow, and smile, with potential worsening of these effects over time if left untreated. The prosecutor’s framing of this testimony was deemed appropriate. Campos expressed fear of testifying due to being the sole survivor of a shooting that resulted in the murder of his housemates, and the prosecutor’s comments about his fear were considered a reasonable inference from the evidence presented.
Alcegaire challenged the prosecutor’s statements regarding Campos's cautiousness in identifying suspects and his emotional state post-shooting. The prosecutor's remarks were found to be fair comments based on the evidence, including law enforcement testimonies about Campos’s behavior after the incident.
Additionally, Alcegaire argued that the prosecutor denigrated him and the defense by labeling their arguments as absurd and suggesting they did not fit the evidence. However, these comments were within the bounds of reasonable argument. The prosecutor also referenced surveillance footage showing Alcegaire and Smith in an elevator, arguing that they appeared excited about their actions, which Alcegaire claimed was inflammatory, but this was also deemed permissible. Overall, no significant errors were identified in the prosecutor's comments or conduct during the trial.
Alcegaire's contention that the prosecutor misrepresented elevator behavior is rejected; video evidence shows Alcegaire and Smith were conversing and laughing, indicating a light mood prior to their involvement in multiple murders. The prosecutor's interpretation of their actions as not reflective of the gravity of later crimes was deemed accurate, with no prosecutorial error found.
Alcegaire also argues that the prosecutor expressed personal beliefs by stating, "I think," particularly regarding his role as a 'soldier' for his brother, claiming it lacked evidentiary support. Evidence presented during the trial, including Alcegaire's coordination with Joseph for a U-Haul rental and surveillance footage of him driving the van, supported the prosecutor's assertions. Witness Campos identified Alcegaire as an assailant, providing further evidence of his involvement. The prosecutor's comments were characterized as fair commentary based on the evidence.
Additionally, Alcegaire challenges the prosecutor's statement about Campos being in shock after the murders, which was also supported by evidence. He further claims the prosecutor improperly sought "justice for the victims" during closing arguments. The prosecutor's remarks emphasized the importance of Campos's testimony in the pursuit of justice for the victims, which is noted to have been condemned in prior cases as potentially prejudicial. However, unlike in Cardona v. State, where such appeals dominated the closing argument, the court found that the prosecutor's comments did not pervade the argument. Consequently, Alcegaire's request for relief is denied, as the prosecutor's remarks did not undermine his right to a fair trial.
Alcegaire's claim of cumulative error in the prosecutor's closing argument was found to lack merit. The review focused on the entirety of the closing argument, including both objected-to and unobjected-to comments, to assess whether the cumulative effect deprived Alcegaire of a fair trial. The court considered a rebuttal argument involving a demonstrative aid—a map showing two addresses relevant to Alcegaire's case.
Evidence established that Alcegaire received a text message with Washington's address and subsequently searched for two addresses in Lakeland. The defense argued that Alcegaire was at the West Magnolia address during the murders. The prosecution countered this by using the map to suggest it was improbable for Alcegaire to have been at West Magnolia when the murders occurred. The defense objected, claiming new evidence was being introduced, but the trial court overruled the objection, allowing the map as a demonstrative aid.
The court found that the use of the map was appropriate, as it was supported by previously presented testimony regarding both addresses searched by Alcegaire. Furthermore, the prosecution's rebuttal did not constitute false or misleading argumentation. While the red light camera footage indicated the U-Haul van was in the vicinity of the West Magnolia address after the murders, there were unresolved questions about the exact route taken. Ultimately, the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the use of the demonstrative aid.
Alcegaire contests the victim impact evidence presented by the State, which included statements from ten witnesses, largely read by the prosecutor. These statements, detailing the grief and suffering of family members due to the victims' deaths, are permissible under section 921.141(7) and align with the Supreme Court's ruling in Payne v. Tennessee. Two statements were made for Washington, four for Branch, and four for Castro. Notably, defense counsel did not object to this evidence at the outset. Alcegaire's challenge lacks merit, as his choice to forgo presenting mitigation during the penalty phase did not impede the State’s right to introduce victim impact testimony, which the trial court clarified was not to be used for aggravation purposes. The testimony was concise, properly focused on each victim's individuality and community loss, with a limited number of witnesses per victim. The precedential case Deparvine v. State supports the admissibility of similar testimony.
Additionally, Alcegaire argues that cumulative errors led to an unfair trial; however, since the individual alleged errors are either procedurally barred or meritless, the cumulative error claim fails. Alcegaire does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, but the court independently assesses the evidence's sufficiency, viewing it favorably for the State. The evidence corroborates Alcegaire’s significant involvement in the crimes, including his rental and operation of a van used in the offenses and surveillance footage placing him at the scene, along with testimony from the surviving witness, Campos, confirming his presence during the murders.
Campos identified Alcegaire from a recent visit to Washington’s residence, corroborated by other witness testimonies and cell phone data. Surveillance footage captured Alcegaire, wearing a straw hat, at the Monte Carlo apartments on the morning of the murders. Additional evidence included recent cell phone photos of Alcegaire in the same hat, as well as a straw hat found in Joseph’s car trunk and the driver of a U-Haul van also wearing a straw hat. Following the murders, Alcegaire conducted multiple internet searches related to the case, deleted text messages—including one from Washington with his address—and erased his phone call history. Upon his arrest, he was altering his appearance by removing his distinctive dreadlocks. The court found substantial evidence supporting Alcegaire’s convictions and affirmed the sentences.
Several justices concurred with the decision, emphasizing that any errors regarding the prosecutor's use of a map during trial were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's argument, suggesting Alcegaire was not present at the crime scene, lacked factual support and was contradicted by eyewitness testimony from the surviving victim. The trial court’s decision not to grant Alcegaire a new trial based on claims of newly discovered evidence was reviewed for abuse of discretion, and none was found. Despite discrepancies in Campos’s testimony, it still placed Alcegaire at the scene of the murder.
Testimony in the case supports existing evidence, including security camera footage of Alcegaire's movements at the apartment complex. The trial court's denial of Alcegaire's motion for a new trial is upheld as reasonable, with no indication that a reasonable person would rule differently. Alcegaire contends that the trial court should have granted the motion, while the State argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to do so after an appeal notice was filed. Relevant legal precedent suggests that a trial court cannot reassess a judgment in a criminal case post-appeal filing, but this issue does not need resolution to affirm the denial of the new trial motion. The decision was not an abuse of discretion based on the evidence presented at trial.
