Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DONALD MULLIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

HARRIS, J.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MULLIS v. STATE
(Oct 13, 2000)