IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

FOURTH ruDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND

FOR DWAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.:

A) 162015CF6602NO(XMA
B) 162013CF7314NOO(MA

DIVISION: CR-H

STATE of FLORIDA
v.

A) WILLIAM RUBEN EBRON, Jr.

B) LONNA LAURAMORE BARTON

STATE'S MOTION FOR JOINDER/CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED

OFFENSES AND DEFENDANTS

COMES NOW the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, and respectfully requests this
Honorable Court grant the State's Motion for ConsolidatiorVJoinder ofRelated Offenses/Defendants.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendants herein are both charged with a series of actions resulting in the neglect of the
same minor

child and with subsequent behavior undertaken in an effort to conceal said neglect.

The evidence and witnesses are the same in each case, as are the underlying acts giving rise

to the charges. Joinder is appropriate since the same evidence would establish the fact and nature
of the relationship between Defendants, and other witnesses, in both cases. Defendants are charged,
in both cases, with acts perpetrated on the same dates, at the same locations, against the same victim,
and in firrtherance of their cofitmon goal(s).

Standard of Review
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.150(bX2) and (3) and 3.151(a) and (b) permitjoinder

of both defendants and cases where the defendants are "charged with conspiracy and some of the
defendants are also charged

with 1 or more offenses alleged to have been committed in furtherance

ofthe conspiracy; or eyettifconspiracy is not charged and all defendants are not charged in

each

count, it is alleged that the several offenses charged were part of a common scheme or plan. . . [t]wo

or more indictments or informations charging related offenses shallbe consolidated for trial on a

timely motion[.] Two or more offenses are related offenses if they are triable in the same court and
are based on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more connected acts or

transactions." (Emphasis

supplied).
Joinder and severance of Defendants and charges is generally a matter resting within the
Court's discretion. Smithers v. State, 826 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2002). One method of establishing
for joinder is via a "causal

link"; that is, one crime induced the other

basis

(see general/y Fotopoulos v.

State, 608 So.2d 994 (Fla.1992) (defendant induced a codefendant to murder a man while defendant

videotaped the crime, then used the videotape to blackmail the same codefendant into soliciting a
second murder a month later)" Where "there is clearly a meaningful relationship between the two
crimes and they are without question linked in some significant wa.!," Smithers, supra,
matters may be tried

jointly, even,

as

at923,the

in Smithers, if the crimes do not represent a single "spree" or

have a causal link. See a/so Brunner v. State, 683 So.2d

ll29

be no question that the crimes and their perpetrators were

(Fla.4'h DCA 1996). Here, there can

linked in a significant way to one another.

The concept is perhaps best exemplified by the type ofjoinder demonstrated in the cases

of

Lugo v. State,845 So.2d 74 (F\a.2003) and Mese v. state,824 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Lugo and Mese were actually codefendants (with a third individual, Doorbal) who were tried

together on multiple charges including RlCO/conspiracy and homicides. Essentially they were
alleged to have been part of an ongoing conspiracy to kidnap and torture wealthy individuals and

force them to turn over assets, after which they would

kill

the

victims. Lugo was one of the actual

torlure/killers (as was Doorbal), Mese was the accountant who handled financial arrahgements. Both
courts held that the defendants and their charges were properly tried together. Commentary from the
Supreme Court of Florida's opinion

in Lugo (854 So.2d at95-96)

is particularly instructive:

The careful planning that surrounded each of these incidents, along with the manner
of execution, obviates the conclusion that they were entirely random, disconnected
events. . this type of activity over a six-month period does not have the

characteristics of impulsive, sporadic behavior. The nature of these crimes

removes them from the category of being merely similar to each other, and
requires they be placed in the category of connected acts or transactions. . .
We further note that if separate trials [on the crimes] had been held, evidence of [the
first set] would have been admissible in Lugo's trial for [the second set] and vice
versa. This evidence would have been admissible in separate trials to establish
the existence of an ongoing, common scheme to target wealthy victims, as well as
to establish the entire context within which Lugo's criminal activity occurred.
(Emphasis supplied).
Defendants have no absolute right to separate trials. "[T]he fact that a defendant might have
a better chance

ofacquittal or

severance, nor is

a strategic advantage

iftried

separately does not establish the right to

hostility itmong defendants, or an attempt by one defendant to escape punishment

by throwing blame on a codefendant, a suffrcient reason, by

itselfl.] Williams v. State, 567 So.2d

9(Fla.4thDCA1990). AswasthecaseinLugo, supraat96,101-l02,thefactthatacodefendant

attempts to incriminate a defendant, does not entitle the defendant to a separate trial or prejudice his

right to a fair determination of his innocence: "there is always some prejudice in any trial where
more than one offense or offender are tried together- but such garden variety prejudice, in and

of

itself, will not suffice." Nor will the passage of even a substantial amount of time, Brunner, supro,

or the occasion when both defendants raise alibi defenses, Johnson v. State 720 5o.2d,232 (Fla.
,
1998), mandate severance. Here, neither defendant has of record any defense which would
require
severance.

AccordinglY, the State submits that joinder of Defendants, for trial on both sets of charges,
should be granted.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do certifr that a copy hereof has been fumished to
A. Perkins, Esq., Office of the Public Defender
K. Carlisle, Esq., Office of Regional Conflict Counsel,
Attorneys for Defendants,
by e-service this 29 day of September, ZOl5.
Respectfully submitted,

--*':"--->( , .l)--;
<i r-i ri\-UV (t",Li;

Richard W. Mantbi
Assistant State Attorney
Bar #119296