From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mullis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 13, 2000
769 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

Case No. 5D00-1017

Opinion filed October 13, 2000 July Term 2000

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Shawn L. Briese, Judge.

Richard J. D'Amico, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.


Mullis contends that he should be relieved from the jury's guilty verdict on the charge of aggravated battery, for pushing the victim down stairs, because his attorney was ineffective in not advising him that voluntary intoxication was a defense. Unfortunately, his claim at trial was that he did not touch the victim and did not push her down the stairs, not that he did so only because he was drunk. Even if appropriate, had he known of the defense of voluntary intoxication, it would not have availed him here.

Thus, even had he known that such a defense existed, the best he could have done in this case would have been to change his story. The purpose of a defense is to justify one's actions based on the facts; it is not to pattern the facts to justify a defense. There is no defense needed for "I didn't do it" except the truth.

Since October 1, 1999, the defense does not exist. See section 775.051, Florida Statutes (1999).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mullis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 13, 2000
769 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Mullis v. State

Case Details

Full title:DONALD MULLIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Oct 13, 2000

Citations

769 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Mullis v. State

Mullis also brought an earlier appeal involving the denial of his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to…