IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No.: 562013CF000608A
Plaintiff, Judge: Dan L. Vaughn
vs.

ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE,
Defendant.


 

SENTENCING ORDER

ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE, you are now before this Court for pronouncement of
sentence. You have been found guilty by the jury of First Degree Murder with a Firearm of Sgt.
Gary Morales Who Was Engaged in the Lawful Performance of his Legal Duties as alleged in
Count I of the Indictment, guilty of Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Of?cer while
Possessing a Firearm as alleged in Count II, guilty of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted
Felon as alleged in Count and guilty of Fleeing and Eluding with Lights and Siren as alleged
in Count IV. The guilt phase of the trial ended on October 1, 2015, when the verdict was
rendered by the jury.

I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Following the guilty verdict, the Court and jury heard additional evidence and argument
from the State and the Defense pursuant to the applicable Florida law in effect at the time in the
penalty phase. 011 October 9m, 2015, the jury recommended by a vote of nine to three that the
death sentence should be imposed by this Court on Count I, First Degree Murder of a Law
Enforcement Of?cer While Engaged in the Lawful Performance of his Legal Duties. On
November 17, 2015 the State and Defense were permitted to present additional evidence and

argument to this Court at the Sgencer Hearing, Sgencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993) and

 

 

'St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

Phillips v. State, 705 802d 1320 (Fla. 1997). Subsequent, to the SW hearing the State and
Defense submitted separate sentencing memoranda on November 12, 2015 by the State and
December 1, 2015 by the Defense, with the State?s ?nal response ?led on December 8, 2015.
See Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1997), Hodges v. State, 595 So2d 929 (Fla. 1992),
rev?d on other grounds, Hodges v. State 113 1992, Lucas 12. State, 568 So2d 18 (Fla. 1990).
The ?nal sentencing hearing was set for January 15, 2016. This trial and sentencing procedure
had been approved in Spaziano v. Florida, 468 US. 447 (1984) and Hildwirz v. State, 490 US.
638 (1989) by the United States Supreme Court.

This Court has carefully heard and considered the evidence presented at the Spencer
hearing, and has had the benefit of the sentencing memoranda from both the State and Defense,
which this Court has thoroughly considered. filings supra.

The ?nal determination of the appropriate sentence rests solely with this Court. This
order has been personally prepared by this Court. See Blackwelder v. State, 851 So2d 650 (Fla.
2003), Valle v. State, 778 SoZd 960 (Fla. 200]), Spencer v. State, 625 802d 688 (Fla. 1993),
Card v. State, 652 So2d 344 (Fla. 1995), Richardson v. State, 437 802d 1091 (Fla. 1983), 
W, 515 So2d 182 (Fla. 1987), Jackson v. State, 648 So2d 85 (Fla. 1994). This Court must
make it?s own independent evaluation of the aggravating and mitigating factors proven in this
case, pursuant to RS. 921.141(3) in writing pursuant to Grossman v. State, 525 So2d 833 (Fla.
1988) and Perez v. State, 648 So2d 715 (Fla. 1995).

Prior to the January 15, 2016 sentencing date this Court began personally preparing the
factual ?ndings and a sentencing order as required by Florida law. See eg. Richardson v. State,
437 SoZd 1091 (Fla. 1983). This Court also gave great weight to the jury decision. Three days

prior to imposition of the sentence in this case the US. Supreme Court rendered it?s opinion in

 

 

(St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

 

 

i

death penalty procedure was unconstitutional. This opinion speci?cally overruled or vacated at
least two prior US. Supreme Court cases dating as far back as 1984 in Sgaziano supra. which
approved the applicable Florida statutory scheme.

In light of the Liam decision, this Court postponed the sentencing in this case and again
requested memoranda from both the State and the Defense in order to determine the appropriate
way to proceed given the procedural status of this case, the defendant had been found guilty
as charged in the Indictment, the Court had received a jury recommendation as referenced above
but the defendant had not been sentenced. The State and the Defense were kind enough to
submit very thorough, well researched memos detailing their respective positions. Of course, the
Court carefully considered both.

This Court has participated in and presided over a number of death penalty cases. In
addition this Court has attended numerous educational courses in handling capital cases offered
by the Florida Conference of Circuit judges and other organizations. This Court has reviewed a
voluminous amount of related written materials on Florida Death Penalty scheme.
Consequently, this Court is very familiar with Florida law and the evolution of other cases
decided by the US. Supreme Court with regard to the issues presented in this case. To
summarize, this Court is familiar with the Apprendi v. New Jersey, 520 US. 466 (2008), King};

Arizona 536 US. 584 (2002) and now Hurst v. State, 136 616 (2016). I have read the

 

decision at least thirty times. I have read the State and Defense Memoranda at least that
many times. The Hu_rst decision is very short by US. Supreme Court standards. It totals 16
pages including the concurring decision by Justice Breyer and the dissent by Justice Alito.

In order to be thorough in this matter, and so the public and the courts will know why this

Court came to it?s conclusions this Court will read the relevant portions of the Hurst decision

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

Wt? 

 

 

here in open Court, along with the relevant parts of both the State and Defense memoranda. By
doing so, this will inform the parties and the public what the current state of the law is now and
help explain the Court?s interpretation of these as they apply to the facts present in Mr. Tisdale?s
case.
memos]
They will be attached to and made a part of this order.

II.

Procedurally, of course, because of the 1M case, only two potential aggravating factors
survive. That is the First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Of?cer While Engaged In The
Lawful Execution of his Legal Duty as alleged in Count I and the contemporaneous conviction
of Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer While Possessing a Firearm as alleged in
Count II. The other Aggravating Factors argued by the State at trial, ie. the capital felony was
committed for purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effectuating an escape from
custody, ES. 921 . l4l(5)(c), the capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful
exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of law, F.S. are no
longer viable aggravating factors for the State to argue or the Court to consider in light of 
This is so because those factors were part of the unconstitutional process as no jury found these
speci?cally proven beyond a reasonable doubt nor was it re?ected in the verdict. The State
properly concedes this point.

As referenced earlier the jury found, not the Court, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
defendant was guilty of Count I, First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Of?cer While

Engaged In The Lawful Execution of his Legal Duty and Count II, Aggravated Assault on a Law

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

Enforcement While Possessing a Firearm. Both of these are statutory enumerated aggravating
circumstances under Florida Statute 921 .141(5)(j) and Florida Statute respectively.

The State argues that because these two surviving factors referenced above were found to
exist beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury in the guilt phase and therefore, this jury ?nding
complies with the Aggrendi, ?iyg, and ?nal requirements and consequently this defendant
remains eligible for the death penalty.

The Defense objects, arguing the only lawful sentence the Court can now impose is life in
prison without parole. Neither party seeks a de novo resentencing proceeding pursuant to the
new procedure enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor.

111.

It is an undeniable fact this defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, by the
jury, not the Court, of First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Of?cer While in the
Performance of his Legal Duties and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Aggravated Assault on
a Law Enforcement Of?cer with a Firearm. As referenced earlier, both of these convictions
qualify under Florida Law as statutory enumerated Aggravating Factors. This also is simply
undeniable. Because the other Aggravating Factors the State proposed were not found to exist
beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury that evidence is not being considered by this Court. In the
case, which used the same statutory procedure this Court used, the facts showed the female
victim was brutally and repeatedly stabbed over 60 times and was robbed. m, Id at page one.
The aggravating factors found to exist by the trial court, not the jury in that case were the
homicide was a heinous, atrocious and cruel, pursuant to ES. and a robbery was

committed. Certainly the jury did not ?nd the homicide was heinous, atrocious and cruel and

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

was not convicted of the robbery in that case by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt and
certainly this was not re?ected in the jury?sverdict form.

In this case, Mr. Tisdale, under the unique facts of this case, was found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the two referenced statutory aggravating factors. These charges were clearly
alleged in the Indictment and were clearly re?ected in the jury?s verdict.

Consequently, these ?ndings by the jury, not the Court, comply with the Aggrendi, King
and now line of cases. This is so because the jury, not the Court, has found beyond a
reasonable doubt from the evidence the defendant guilty of two aggravating factors that would
expose this defendant to greater punishment than that authorized by law, e. from life to death.
Aggrendi Id at 494.

The Defense was asked by this Court to address this question in their ?nal sentencing
memoranda, ?Where in Hurst, Ring, or Apprendi does it say that a guilt phase ?nding by the
JURY is not suf?cient enough to make the defendant eligible for the death penalty? The JURY
has made this ?nding beyond a reasonable doubt, not the Court. Does this ?nding by the jury,
then, comply with Hurst, Ring and Apprendi?? This court requested the Defense address this
question because in their post ?gs; decision Sentencing Memoranda ?led February 12, 2016 the
Defense asserted on page ?ve ?It is possible that an aggravator can be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt during guilt and then a juror feel (sic) it is insuf?cient to recommend death.
Even if two aggravators were proven in the guilt phase, that factual ?nding is not enough.? The
Defense answers the Court?s inquiry ?No? in their ?nal sentencing memoranda.

Speci?cally, the Defense argues ?Under Hu_rst, additional fact ?nding is necessary. 136
616, 193 2d 504 (2016). Florida is a weighing state. See Jennings v. McDonoug?,

490 F.3d 1230, 1249 n. 14 (11th Cir. 2007) (a federal habeas decision in a Florida capital case.)

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

See also Woldt v. Peogle, 64 P3d 256 at 263 (Colo. 2003) (in a weighing state, the trier of fact
must weigh all the aggravating factors found to exist against the mitigating evidence to
determine if the defendant is eligible for death). Therefore, in a weighing state like Florida 
requires jury ?ndings as to each aggravator relied on by the State, as well as ?ndings as to
whether the aggravators are suf?cient to warrant death and not outweigh by the mitigators.
Florida?s advisory jury recommendation ?does not make speci?c factual ?ndings with regard to
the existence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.? Id at 622. The guilt phase ?ndings
are not suf?cient and ?the State cannot now treat the jury?s advisory recommendation as the
necessary factual ?nding required by Iii/2g.? This Court rejects that argument as the Defense

reads Hurst too broadly. The Hurst decision, simply put, only found unconstitutional the

 

 

speci?c portion of Florida law that required the Court, not the jury, to determine what
aggravating factors, if any, were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that would cause someone to
be potentially eligible for the death penalty. The Court decided, based on Aggrendi and ?ag,
that was the role of the jury only to make this factual determination. The court left
undisturbed the rest of Florida?s procedure. Likewise, nowhere in @131 does the US. Supreme
Court require any factual ?ndings as to mitigation because those factors clearly do not increase
the potential sentence above the maximum sentence as do the aggravating factors.

Lastly, as the US Supreme Court wrote in ?ats; ?Finally, we do not reach the State?s
assertion that any error was harmless. See Neder v. US, 527 US 1 (1999) (holding that the
failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless.) This Court
normally leaves it to state courts to consider whether an error is harmless, and we see no reason
to depart from that pattern here, See Mg, 536 US. at 609.? at 10. This Court ?nds this

procedural defect found by the Hurst court, is harmless in this case as the existence of the

 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04129l2016 12:23 PM

 

aggravating factors were determined by the jury, not the Court, beyond a reasonable doubt in the
guilt phase of the trial and were re?ected in the jury?s verdict.

Therefore, logic and the law make this defendant eligible for the death penalty in the
unique facts of this case, because this case is entirely consistent with the Aggrendi, ?ag and now
the reasoning that any element or factor that exposes the defendant to an increased
sentence has been found by the jury, not the Court, beyond a reasonable doubt and is re?ected in
the verdict form.

IV.

Next, the Court will examine these two remaining statutory enumerated aggravating
factors and weigh the mitigating evidence in order to determine if the defendant should be
sentenced to death on Count.

The State, in their post sentencing memoranda, argued two aggravating
circumstances exist to support the imposition of the death sentence. First, the State alleges the
defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or
threat of violence pursuant to RS. Second, the State alleges the victim of the
capital felony was a law enforcement of?cer engaged in the performance of his of?cial duties,
pursuant to RS. 

The Defense argues as mitigation the defendant?s age, pursuant to RS. and
a number of mitigation factors under F.S. Speci?cally, the Defense alleges, in the
order they were presented in their sentencing memorandum Hereditary predisposition to
substance abuse and dependence Generational family dysfunction and distress 
Prenatal cocaine exposure Single mother Ambiguous paternity Father absence

Father criminality and imprisonment Emotional and supervisory neglect by mother

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

Physical and emotional abuse Observed domestic violence of mother and boyfriend
Frequent school changes (7 schools Residential instability (6 residences
by age 8) Sequential stepfather ?gures Corruptive male role models in the
extended family Murder of maternal 1St cousin, Raijon Community racism 
Corruptive community, community violence, police pro?ling/harassment/violence, inconsistent
school performance, marijuana dependence from age 15, Marginal young adult adjustment, the
defendant is a devoted loving son, the defendant is a loving father, he is a giver and sel?ess, he
has a good sense of humor and is/was a silly kid, funny and memorable. He is pleasant, likeable,
a nice kid and polite. He graduated from high school. He earned his Associate of Arts Degree.
He has artistic and creative abilities. He has the love and affection of his family and positive
adult relationships with his family. He has matured since this incident. He attended church and
was a spiritual person. The defendant had a good employment record. He has potential for
rehabilitation and positive prison adjustment. He has conducted himself well in jail. He will
adjust well to life in prison and his history does not indicate future dangerousness. He
demonstrates high potential for rehabilitation. He demonstrated good behavior during his trial.
He would be a positive contributor to prison. He was cooperative in his interview with the
police. He admitted to the shooting. He has no juvenile criminal history and he had no violent
criminal history before February 28, 2013.
V.

This Court will examine the State?s two aggravating factors ?rst in the order listed above,
then will discuss the defendant?s statutory and non-statutory mitigation. In considering the
evaluation of these factors, this Court has considered the language in, inter alia, Campbell v.

State, 571 S02d 415 (Fla. 1990), Ford v. State, 802 802d 1121 (Fla. 2001), rease v. State, 768

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

802d 1050 (Fla. 2000), Bowles v. State, 804 So2d 1173 (Fla. 2001), Nibert v. State, 574 802d
1059 (Fla. 1990), Ferrel v. State, 653 802d 367 (Fla. 1995).

In addition, this Court recognizes that the State must prove these statutory aggravating
factors beyond a reasonable doubt and has indeed done so as found by the jury?s verdict in the
guilt phase. Card v. State, 453 So2d 17 (Fla. 1984), Johnson v. State, 438 802d 774 (Fla. 1983),
Williams v. State, 386 802d 538 (Fla. 1980), Alfred v. Stat 307 So2d 433 (Fla. 1975), My.
Stag, 873 So2d 270 (Fla. 2004), and that the Defense mitigating circumstances must be
reasonably convincing and/or established by a greater weight of the evidence. Ford 12. State, 802
802d 1121 (Fla. 2001), Nibert v. State, 574 802d 1059 (Fla. 1990), Reynolds v. State, 934 So2d
1159 (Fla. 2006).

1. The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or a felony

Involvin the use or threat of violence to the erson. F.S. 921.141 5 .

   

The jury found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Aggravated Assault on
a Law Enforcement Of?cer, e. Deputy Sheri?as alleged in Count II of the
Indictment. This conviction involved the use of a ?rearm that was in the actual possession of the
defendant. As the evidence at trial revealed this act occurred just as Deputy_ arrived as a
back up of?cer as the defendant was shooting and killing Sgt. Morales. Eyewitnesses testi?ed at
the trial that the defendant raised his arm and pointed his loaded ?rearm at Deput-
Indeed, Deputy-esti?ed the defendant pointed his loaded ?rearm at him in an attempt to
?acquire? him as a target. Deputy-then engaged the defendant and shot at the defendant.

If two or more victims are involved, and a violent crime occurred against a separate
victim, a contemporaneous conviction can be used. See King 12. State, 390 802d 315 (Fla. 1980),

Pardo v. State, 563 802d 77 (Fla. 1990), Stein v. State, 632 802d 1361 (Fla. 1994), Francis v.

10

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

St_ate, 808 So2d 110 (Fla. 2002), Wasko v. State, 505 802d 1314 (Fla. 1987), Lucas v. State, 376
802d 1149 (Fla. 1979), LeCrox v. State, 533 SoZd 750 (Fla. 1988), Compare e. g. Donaldson v.
722 So2d 177 (Fla. 1998) (this aggravator generally requires a prior conviction), Holtan v.
gate, 573 802d 284 (Fla. 1990), Bruno v. State, 574 So2d 76 (Fla. 1991) and Elledge v. State,
434 So2d 613 (Fla. 1993) (A contemporaneous conviction for a violent crime against the same
victim cannot be used to support this circumstance). In Simmons v. State, 934 802d 1100 (Fla.
2006) the Florida Supreme Court found Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Of?cer is a
felony offense that involves the use or threat of violence to the person.

The Defense argues this Court should not consider this aggravator as being suf?ciently
proven. Speci?cally, the Defense in their original sentencing memoranda claims there were
contradictions in the testimony surrounding this offense, it lasted less than two minutes, Deputy

-did not know whether Sgt. Morales was injured at the time that the defendant was
running away at the time Deputy-?red his weapon. Further, the Defense argues the
evidence revealed the defendant never ?red his ?rearm at?

This prior conviction for a violent felony is a ?strong? aggravator. The death sentence
has been upheld when this aggravator is the only one present in pre first cases. See Ferrell v.
Stag, 680 SoZd 390 (Fla. 1996), Duncan v. State, 619 So2d 279 (Fla. 1993). This aggravator is
among ?the most weighty in Florida?s sentencing calculus.? See Street v. State, 825 So2d 882.

Therefore, because the jury found this aggravating circumstance proven beyond a
reasonable doubt and the jury?s verdict of guilty was supported by competent substantial
evidence this Court ?nds this aggravating factor exists because of the jury?s verdict in the guilt
phase. Melendez v. State, 498 SoZd 1258 (Fla. 1986). This Court gives this aggravator great

weight.

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 2. The victim of the capital felony was a law enforcement of?cer engaged in the
lawful performance of his or her of?cial duties. F.S. 

The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt the State proved the defendant knew Gary
Morales was a Law Enforcement Of?cer Engaged in the Lawful Performance of his Legal Duty,
pursuant to the de?nition in RS. 943.100) and see the Court?s jury instructions and this ?nding
was re?ected in the verdict. Therefore, this Court ?nds this aggravating factor exists. The jury?s
verdict was supported by competent substantial evidence. Melendez, supra.

In summary, this Court ?nds two statutory aggravating circumstances exist because the
jury determined this in the guilt phase and was re?ected in their verdict. This Court ?nds the
defendant was convicted of another capital felony involving the use or threat of violence to the
person, pursuant to RS. 921 .141(5)(b) and the victim of the capital felony was a law
enforcement of?cer engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties, pursuant to RS.
This Court assigns this aggravator great weight.

VI.

Next, the Court will turn to and consider the mitigating circumstances in the order they
were presented in the Defense sentencing memoranda.

1. The Age of the Defendant

The defendant was twenty ?ve years old on the date of this murder. As the Defense
suggests, this Court must look to the evidence of the maturation if the person is over 18.
Caballero v. State, 851 802d 655 (Fla. 2003), Campbell v. State, 571 So2d 415 (Fla. 1990). The
Defense asserts the defendant?s age and lack of maturity should be given considerable weight.
This Court ?nds from the evidence the defendant was a high school graduate and had .

earned an Associates? Degree. He was living in his own house with his girlfriend. They were

12

 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 



expecting a child as the girlfriend was pregnant. He was capable of maintaining employment
and was described by one former employer as dependable and conscientious.

In Hurst v. State, 819 So2d 689 (Fla. 2002) the Florida Supreme Court said ?for a court to
give a non~minor defendant?s age signi?cant weight as a mitigating circumstance at sentencing
phase of a capital murder case, the defendant?s age must be linked with some other characteristic
of the defendant or the crime, such as signi?cant emotional immaturity or mental problems.? In
Campbell v. State, 679 SoZd 720 (Fla. 1996) the Court said that while the age of 21
chronological years is of little impact by itself, if it is linked to ?some other relevant
characteristic of the defendant or the crime? such as signi?cant emotional immaturity, it can
become signi?cant mitigation. itzgatrick v. State, 527 802d 809 (Fla. 1988). See also eg.
Garcia 12. State, 492 SoZd 360 (Fla. 1986), Mason v. State, 438 SoZd 374 (Fla. 1983), 
State, 395 SoZd 492 (Fla. 1980) and Thompson v. State, 648 SoZd 692 (Fla. 1994).

This Court ?nds no suf?cient nexus has been established by the Defense between this

defendant?s age and this homicide. This Court give this mitigating factor very little weight.

2. Family Background
(A) Transgenerational Hereditary gredisgosition to Substance Abuse and

Dependence.

The Defense asserts the defendant?s family history includes several members that
suffered from drug and alcohol dependence including his mother, uncle and cousins. The
defendant?s mother testi?ed she used cocaine for a short period while she was pregnant with the
defendant. She testi?ed it caused him some problems shortly after his birth. There was no
evidence presented this drug use by his mother effected him negatively in any way thru out the

rest of his life. There was no evidence presented his mother ever suffered from any signi?cant

13

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

drug or alcohol dependence. Indeed there was no evidence presented that the defendant was
under the in?uence of drugs or alcohol on the day of this murder. This Court assigns this very
little weight.

(B) Generational family dysfunction and distress

The Defense asserts the defendant?s family history includes several generations of broken
homes, most of his mother?s relatives died relatively young and several of his family members
have been incarcerated. Further, because of this he was predisposed thru heredity but also the
familial behavior patterns affected him through scripts and modeling which caused sequential
damage. There was scant, if any, evidence of this presented by the Defense. This Court assigns
very little weight to this.

3.: Neurodevelopmental

(A) Prenatal cocaine exposure

The Defense asserts because of the defendant?s mother?s cocaine use during her
pregnancy he suffered from tremors and would cry uncontrollably. The Defense suggests this
Court give this great weight.

As referenced earlier, the defendant?s mother candidly testi?ed she used cocaine for a
period of time while she was pregnant. After the defendant?s birth she testi?ed he had tremors,
presumably caused by the cocaine, but she never testified of any lasting effects her prenatal
cocaine use had on her son, neither did anyone else, either a family member or an expert witness
testify about this. There was no testimony as to how, if at all, this exposure to prenatal cocaine
was relevant to the defendant?s actions on the day in question. Asthere was no evidence the
mother used cocaine during her pregnancy, this Court finds this factor is established but

assigns it very little weight.

14

 

?St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

9:

4. Family and Parenting

(A) Single Parent Mother

The evidence did establish this factor. The defendant was raised by his mother and her
family. His biological father was never part of his life. However, this Court ?nds the
defendant?s mother was an excellent mother for her son given her circumstances. Her sisters and
family also did their best to provide for the defendant. Certainly his mother worked hard over
the years. But, despite the defendant?s allegations that he did not have a stable caregiver, there
was no evidence he did not have a stable caregiver as he grew up.

Although there was evidence his mother was a single parent, this Court assigns this
very little weight.

(B) Ambiguous Paternity

There was evidence from his mother that there was a man the defendant thought was his
father. A paternity test determined this man was not in fact his father. This man left the family
and the defendant never saw him again. This Court ?nds this factor has been established.
However, very little weight is assigned to it as there was no showing how this ultimately
affected his life or how it mitigates the potential punishment in this case.

(C) Father?s absence

As discussed earlier, this factor was established by the evidence. Although there was
evidence the defendant had other adult male ?gures in his life, he never knew his real father who
was never in his life. This Court gives this moderate weight.

(D) Father?s Criminality and Imprisonment

There was evidence the defendant?s father was incarcerated for robberies and died in

prison. The Defense asks this Court to give this factor some weight. However, the Defense does

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

 



not in any way explain how this affected the defendant?s life in any way. This Court therefore
assigns this almost no weight.

(E) Emotional and Supervisory Neglect by Mother

The Defense asserts here the defendant was an only child and had no siblings to rely on
emotionally and was often left unsupervised by his mother who came home exhausted after
work. At times he lived with his Aunt who also worked, had her own children and had to deal
with a drug dependent husband.

The evidence presented at the trial and the hearing does not support this
assertion. The evidence showed the defendant?s mother and his aunts were very involved in the
defendant?s life, loved him and cared for him. Nobody in his family neglected him emotionally
or physically abused him. His mother was very protective and supportive of him all his life and
remains so today. As this factor has not been proven by the Defense, this Court assigns it no
weight.

(F) Physical and emotional abuse

The Defense alleges ?the men in his mother?s life were abusive to the defendant? and
identify ?Lionel? who made the defendant strip down to his underwear and stand in an open
doorway as punishment. The Defense further alleges another boyfriend, Johnny, would leave
welts on him after punishing him with a belt. They allege his mother would also sometimes use
a belt to discipline him.

There was testimony presented about one of the defendant?s mother?s boyfriends
punishing the defendant by making him stand in the doorway in his underwear. So this Court

?nds this proven. The evidence further revealed this incident only occurred one time and the

16

'St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

i

mother removed Lionel from the home immediately after this. This Court assigns this very
little weight as it was a very isolated event in the defendant?s life.

As far as the allegation regarding the abuse by ?Johnny? this was not proven by the
evidence, consequently this is not assigned any weight.

At times the mother may have used corporal punishment on the defendant. The Court
?nds this to be established by the evidence. On the other hand, it was never remotely abusive or
excessive in any way or manner. There was no evidence that any of these very isolated instances
traumatized the defendant in any respect. This factor is given almost no weight.

(G) Observed domestic violence of mother and boyfriend

There was some evidence of this presented by the Defense. The Court will ?nd it proven.
But, these incidents were very infrequent and the defendant?s mother would terminate the
relationship immediately and remove the person from the home. Because these incidents were
very rare and isolated this Court assigns this factor little weight.

(H) Fre uent school chan es 7 schools 

The Defense did establish the defendant attended several different schools during his
elementary and high school years. His school transcripts and records were admitted into
evidence and this Court considered them. As a result of attending these several schools the
Defense asserts ?The changes in schools blocked the formation of relationships that might have
mitigated the limitations of his parenting, thus concentrating these pathological family forces.
Transitions to different schools may constitute a signi?cant stress and coping challenge. With
recurrent transitions, school, rather than a place of predictability, structure, and familiarity, is

unpredictable, unfamiliar and of uncertain structure.? The Defense offers no evidence to support

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

 

this claim, or what effect this had on the defendant. This Court therefore assigns very little

weight to this factor, as most of it is speculation.

(I) Residential instability (6 residences by age 8)

There was evidence presented by the Defense that the defendant and his mother moved
from New Jersey when he was very young, lived with his aunt a short time, then relocated to an
apartment in West Palm Beach. By age 8, the defendant and his mother moved to Jupiter. The
defendant?s mother described their different residences. There was no evidence these residences
were not clean, comfortable and very adequate for their needs.

Again, there was no evidence as to how this adversely effected the defendant. This
Court assigns very little weight to this factor.

(J) Sequential Stepfather Figures

The Defense established two stepfather ?gures lived with he and his mother, and that
these men did not stay long. Because of this, the Defense alleges none of these men made any
emotional connection with the defendant. This Court assigns very little weight to this factor
as there was no showing as to how, if at all, this effected the defendant.

(K) Male Role Models in the Extended Family

The Defense established the defendant had very few male role models in his life, and that
some of them 119., uncles and cousins speci?cally, used marijuana and alcohol. The Defense
established the defendant and some members of his extended family had negative feelings for
and were distrustful of law enforcement. There was no evidence presented that ?Uncle Bill? was
a heroin addict. This factor is given very little weight.

(L) Murder of Maternal First Cousin, Raiion

In the previous factor above, the Defense wrote ?The only other male role model in

18


St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

 


i
4

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

Eriese?s life was his cousin, Raijon. Twenty years his senior, Raij on suffered with drug
addiction. Raijon was also a convicted felon who had run-ins with police and shared his
radicalized ideas with young Eriese.? Compare that language with what is alleged in this factor.
?Raijon was 20 years older than Eriese and despite drug problems and being a convicted felon;
he took a special interest in Eriese who was close in age to his own son, Ahmed. Raijon?s death
was very dif?cult on the whole family having happened the week after the unexpected death of
their Uncle Bill. The family all agree that Eriese took Raijon?s death very hard, he became
severely depressed and closed up from them.?

On the one hand the Defense argues the defendant?s exposure to Raijon was an example
of a ?Corruptive Male Role Model?, but on the other hand in this factor the Defense argues this
drug addicted convicted felon?s special interest in the defendant and subsequent murder is also
mitigating in nature.

The Defense did establish that the defendant?s uncle did pass away unexpectedly, and a
week later his cousin was murdered. This Court assigns very little weight to the death of

Uncle Bill, and moderate weight to the murder of the defendant?s cousin.

5. Community
(A) Community Racism

The Defense claims as a young black man in America, the defendant faced racism, and
was exposed to racism at a very young age. Further, it is alleged he was isolated as a minority
and bussed away from his home and community school, and Dr. Gabarino?s testimony is cited as
proof. There were never any speci?c examples of the defendant?s exposure to any racism or

racist acts or words. There was no evidence presented he was isolated as a minority.

19

 

 

 

Therefore, this Court gives this factor almost no weight. See e.g. Lebreu v. State, 799
Sold 997 (Fla. 2001).

(B) Corruptive Community

The Defense asserts the defendant?s neighborhood in Jupiter, Florida was a low income
housing community, was small, suffered from high crime, violence and drugs. And although the
defendant participated in some school activities, he was not an athlete and did not have the
support to do other activities, spent time alone and the adults there gave drugs to the kids in the
neighborhood.

There was very little evidence to support this. According to the defendant?s mother,
Limeston Creek was a nice community that was quiet, safe and generally undeveloped when they
?rst moved in. Only several years later did the area begin to deteriorate. There was no evidence
presented that adults gave drugs to kids there, and no evidence the defendant was exposed to it or
was given drugs there. As there was a little evidence to support this, this Court will assign very
little weight to this factor.

(C) Communig Violence

The Defense presented some evidence of this through Dr. Garbarino. However, there
was very little, if any, evidence presented that supported the Defense allegations that this was a
high crime area where drug dealers hang out on the corners and violence was a daily experience.
This factor is given minimal weight.

(D) Police Profiling/Harassmeat/Violence

The evidence established the defendant had several encounters with law enforcement as
an adult in Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties. The facts and circumstances of these are part of

the record in this case. There was no evidence to support the allegations that he was harassed or

20

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

stereotyped by the police because his hair was in dreads. Consequently, very little weight is
assigned to this factor.

6. Disturbed Traiectory

(A) Inconsistent School Performance

The Defense alleges the defendant?s school records show he had poor grades and past the
?fth grade were mostly D?s F?s, repeated the tenth grade and was later expelled, and had to
complete his high school diploma at an alternative school. Ultimately, however, he did obtain
his diploma and earned an Associate?s Degree. As his grades and school records are in evidence

this Court ?nds this proven, but because this Court finds this to be of little value in

mitigation, it is given very little weight.

(B) Marijuana Dependence from Age 15

The State agrees in their response that the defendant has a history of marijuana use, and
because there was evidence of this, this Court will find this factor has been established.
However, as the State correctly points out, on the day of this murder there was no evidence the
defendant had used marijuana or alcohol. This factor is given very little weight as there was
no evidence of drug or alcohol use on the day in question.

(C) Marginal Young Adult Adjustment

The Defense summarizes all the preceding factors in this portion of their memoranda and
summarize the defendant?s life status at the time of this murder. The Defense describes how the
defendant and his mother faced some dif?culties during their lives. These include a fatherless
home, ?nancial dif?culties, schooling issues, drug use, run-ins with the police and courts and the
loss of family members. However, there were many positives. He had a loving, hardworking

mother who did her best to care for him as he grew up. He had aunts and other family members

21

 

six-"mt

were

?St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

who helped out the family when it was needed. The defendant and his mother had comfortable
homes. The defendant graduated high school, earned an Associate?s Degree, had employable
skills, and had a girlfriend who was expecting their ?rst child. He had his own place to live. On
balance this Court gives this factor(s) very little weight.

7. The Defendant Has Manv Positive Qualities

(A) The Defendant Is a Devoted,I Loving Son

This was certainly established by the evidence, as the State properly concedes. This is
given moderate weight.

(B) The Defendant is a Loving Father

There was some evidence of this as the Defense points out that this consisted of a video
of the defendant interacting with his two year old son at a jail visitation. This is given very little
weight, as the defendant?s girlfriend was eight months pregnant when the defendant
committed this murder.

(C) Giver, Selfless

Although this quality if hard to quantify, there was some testimony about this and this
Court will accept it as proven. This Court assigns this almost no weight.

(D) Eriese Has a Good Sense of Humora Silly Kid, Funny, Memorable

There was testimony from at least one of the defendant?s teachers and family that
describe the defendant as having these qualities. This is given almost no weight.

(E) Pleasant. Likeable, Nice Kid. Eriese was Polite

There was testimony also from his former employers and teachers that the defendant was

pleasant, likeable and polite. This Court ?nds this mitigating factor proven but assigns it very

little weight.

22

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

(F) Eriese Graduated from High School

This also was established from the evidence. This Court gives this moderate weight.

(G) Eriese Earned His Associates of Arts Degree

This was established by the evidence as the State properly concedes. This degree is from
Lincoln Technical Academy for Architectural Drawing. This Court assigns this moderate
weight.

(H) Eriese has Artistic and Creative Abilities

The Court also ?nds the defendant has these qualities, as the State properly concedes and

from the testimony. These qualities are given very little weight.

(1) He has the Love of His Family and Positive Adult Relationships with Family

This factor was established by the evidence, as the State concedes. This is assigned very

little weight.

(J) Maturig

There was some evidence of his maturity since this murder, that he has a different
perspective on life and wishes he could take back that day in February. This is given almost no
weight by the Court.

(K) Eriese Attended Church and Was Spiritual

This was also established from testimony by friends and family. It is given very little
weight by the Court.

8. Employment B?ground

(A) Eriese Had A Good Employment Record

This factor has been established by the Defense as described in the Defense Sentencing

Menioranda. It is given moderate weight by this Court.

23

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

i
32

i
i

9. Potential for Rehabilitation and Positive Prison Adiustment

(A) Erise Has Had Good Jail Conduct

Although there were so minor issues with the jail staff, this Court ?nds this has been
suf?ciently proven by the Defense while this case was pending trial. There was no evidence
about his stay in other jails that the Defense mentions. This is assigned very little weight.

(B) Will Adiust to Life in Prison. His History Does Not Indicate Future

Dangerousness

This Court will agree there was suf?cient evidence to establish this through the testimony
of Dr. Cunningham and his research. However, it is assigned very little weight.

(C) Eriese Demonstrates High Potential for Rehabilitation

This factor is also very hard to measure, of course. The Court agrees with the Defense
comments that the evidence establishes he had the ability to obtain adequate grades and test
scores in school, jobs that involve trust, has strong and positive family relationships, has artistic
skills and has had no signi?cant problems while in jail. However, these intangibles are given
little weight.

(D) Eriese Would be a Positive Contributor to Prison

This Court agrees there was some testimony from the witnesses consistent with what the
Defense outlines in their memoranda. This factor, however, is given almost no weight.

(E) Eriese Was Cooperative in His Police Interview

Certainly the Video recording of the defendant?s statement to the police is part of the
record in this case. It was the subject of an extensive hearing pursuant to a Motion to Suppress
?led by the Defense. Of course, this Court carefully considered the defendant?s statements and

his demeanor in deciding how to rule on the Motion.

24

)St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 



i
1

Despite the Defense contention contained in the Motion, this Court found the defendant
freely and voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment rights and spoke to law enforcement. The
reasons for the Court?s ruling are contained in the Order Denying the Motion to Suppress and
need not be repeated here. Now, the Defense asserts he cooperated with the police. In this
Court?s view, simply giving an interview to the police doesn?t necessarily equate with
cooperation. It is the content of the statement that is determinative.

Therefore, this Court ?nds the defendant did give a voluntary statement to the police and
was captured after a car chase from the murder scene. But it has not been proven he was
?cooperative with the police? in what he said in that statement. Since this has not been proven,
this is given no weight by this Court.

(F) Eriese Admitted to The Shooting

As referenced in the preceding paragraph, the defendant gave a statement to the police
about his actions in this murder. Yes, he ?admitted to the shooting?. But his version as to why
certainly did not match the overwhelming evidence of his guilt in this case that was produced by
the State at the guilt phase of the trial. His statements proved to be untruthful and self?serving.
This has not been proven in the way the Defense portrays it. The defendant didn?t confess he
committed murder. In essence, he claimed he shot Sgt. Morales in self-defense.

Consequently, although the defendant ?admitted to the shooting? in the strictest sense,
this Court ?nds this factor not proven as the Defense intends it. It is assigned no weight.

(G) Eriese Has No Juvenile History

This Court agrees there was no evidence presented that the defendant had any juvenile
criminal history. That the Defense cites this as mitigation, notwithstanding the assertions about

the defendant?s poor upbringing, is ironic. This Court assigns this moderate weight.

25

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 



 

 

i

(H) Eriese Had No Violent Criminal History Before February 28, 2013

As the State properly concedes this point, and this Court ?nds from the evidence
presented this factor to be true, this Court concludes this to be proven. This is assigned
moderate weight.

VII.

In carefully weighing the aggravating factors that were established by the State beyond a
reasonable doubt, against the mitigating factors established by the Defense, it is not simply a
quantitative analysis, but a qualitative one. It is the Court?s duty to look to both the quality and
the nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which have been established.

Under such an analysis, and upon re?ection and consideration, the proven aggravating
circumstances substantially outweigh the non-statutory mitigating factors.

SENTENCE

Therefore, Eriese Alphonso Tisdale, as to Count I of the Indictment, First Degree Murder
of a Law Enforcement Of?cer with a Firearm In The Lawful Execution of His Legal Duties, it is
the sentence of this Court and the judgment of the law that you be sentenced to death for the first
degree murder of Sgt. Gary Morales. As to Count II of the Indictment, Aggravated Assault on a
Law Enforcement Of?ce While in Possession of a Firearm, the Court sentences you to ?fteen
years in prison, consecutive to Count I. As to Count 111 of the Indictment, Possession of a
Firearm By a Convicted Felon, the Court sentences you to ?fteen years in prison, to run
consecutive to Counts I and 11. As to Count IV of the Indictment, Fleeing and Eluding with
Lights and Siren, the Court Sentences you to ?ve years in prison, to run consecutive to Counts I,

II, and 

26

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

It is further ordered that you, Eriese Alphonso Tisdale, be taken by the Sheriff of St.
Lucie County to the Florida State Prison and there be kept in close and secure con?nement until
the date your execution is set. It is further ordered that on such time as scheduled by the
Governor of the State of Florida, at the place of execution named in the Governor Warrant of
Execution, you be put to death.

You are hereby noti?ed that the judgment of conviction and sentence of death are subject
to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Florida. You are further advised that you have the
right to the assistance of counsel in the ?ling and preparation of your appeal.

If you wish to have counsel appointed for the preparation of your appeal, you may advise

 

 

this Court through your lawyer and then counsel will be appointed on your behalf.
DONE AND ORDERED in open Court this ,2 day of April, 2016 in Fort Pierce,
St. Lucie County, Florida.

DAN L. VAUGHN
Circuit Judge
cc: Mary Celidonio, APD
. Stanley Glenn, APD
?2 Shane Manship, APD
 Ginger Miranda, APD
Thomas Bakkedahl, ASA
Court ?le
27

 

3
a

a
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:23 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE
Modi?ed COUNTY, FLORIDA
i Reaentence
Amended Case Number: 
El Concerted
Mitigated
Community Control Violator Sexual Predator
Probation Violator Sex Offender
Minor Victim
State of Florida Sentenced in Absentia
vs
ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE
Defendant
Jul-2591.55.31
The Defendant. ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE being personally before this Court represented by: Attorney: MARY CELIDONIO the Attorney
of record, and the State represented by: THOMAS RICHARD BAKKEDAHL and having:
12 
Entered a plea of guilty to the following orime(s)
Entered a plea of nolo confendre to the following crime(s)
Found guilty of a Wolation of Probation
Admitted a Violation of Community Control
Found Guilty of a Violation of Community Control
Count Crime Level of crime Degree of Crime OBTS Number
WM 
1 WA 9 
EIBEABII and moor
WW 
1 MW 77 i 
EIBEABM new.
WW
3 19.0.33 mm
EELQAI
9. ?lm; mm I 55mm
8
and being a quali?ed offender pursuant to Florida Statute 943.325 - defendant shall be required to submit DNA samples as required by iaw.
Cl and good cause being shown; IT IS ORDERED THAT ADJUDICATION OF GUILT BE WITHHELD.



 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 0412912016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER 201SCF000608 A

 

The Defendant in open Court was advised of the right to appeal from this Sentence by ?ling notice of appeal
within 30 days from this date with the Clerk of this Court and the Defendant's right to the assistance of counsel in
taking the appeal at the expense of the State on showing of indigency.

Circuit Judge  

 

 

  

 

 

1. Right Thumb 2. Right Index 3. Right Middle 4. Right Ring 5. Right Little

 

   

 

10. Left Little

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Title

Fingerprints taken by:  [/17 I 06 0  ?434), 5

I HEARBY CERTIFY that the above and forgoing ?ngerprints are the ?ngerprints of the Defendant

ALPHONSO and that they were placed thereon by said Defendant in my

presence in open Court this date.

DONE AND ORDERED in Open Court at St. Lucie County. Florida, on Friday. April 29. 2016

Nunc Pro Tunc To:

 

 

f/M?

Circuit Judge 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 who?. .row?

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, iN AND FOR ST. LUCIE

Modi?ed COUNTY, FLORIDA

Resentence

Amended

Corrected

Mitigated

Community Control Violator, Previoust Adjudged Guilty

Probation Violator. Previously Adjudged Guilty

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE

UCIDDEICID

Case Number: 
OBTS Number: 5601187356

SENTENCE
As to Count (3) 1
The Defendant. being personally before this court. accompanied by the Defendant's attorney of record. MARY CELIDONIO . and having been
adjudicated guilty. and the court having given the defendant an opportunity to be heard and to offer matters in mitigation of sentence. and to show cause why
the defendant should not be sentenced as provided by law. and no cause being shown.

and the Court having on differed imposition of sentence until this date.

 

and the Court having previouer entered a judgment in this case on now resentences the Defendant.

 

El and the Court having placed the defendant on and having subsequently revoked the Defendant's.
It Is The Sentence of Court that:

The defendant pay a ?ne in the amount of m. pursuant to section 775.083. Florida Statutes. plus
as the 5% surcharge required by section 938.04. Florida Statutes.



 


The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Saint Lucie County. Florida.
The defendant is sentenced as a youthful offender in accordance with section 958.04. Florida Statutes.

To Be Imprisoned (check one; unmarked sections are inapplicable):
For a term of Natural Life.
For a term of Natural Life with a 25 year mandatory minimum.



 

The SENTENCE rs SUSPENDED for a period of subject to conditions set forth
in this Order.
it a ?split? sentence. complete the appropriate paragraph.
Followed by a period of on Community Control under the supervision of the Department of Corrections

according to the terms and conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

Followed by a period of Probation under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
according to the terms and conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

 

However. after serving a period of imprisonment in . the balance of the sentence will be suspended and the defendant shall be placed
on ProbationICommunity Control for a period of . under the supervision of the Department of Canadians according to the terms and
conditions of ProbationICommunlty Control set forth in a separate order.

 

In the event the defendant is ordered to serve additional split sentences. all Incarceration portions shall be satis?ed before the defendant begins
sewice of the supervision tenns.

 

 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04l29l2016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE

 



Firearm

Drug Traf?cking

Law Enforcement

Controlled Substance Within
1.000 Feet of School
Habitual Felony Offender

Habitual Violent Felony
Offender

Violent Career Criminal

Capital Offense

Prison Release

Sexual Predator

summons;
Jail Credit
Credit for Time Served In

After Violation of
Probation or Community Control

 

ConsecudveIConcurrent
As To Other Counts

 

 



El

[3 CID [3

Case Number: 


As to Cou nt(s) 1

By appropriate notation. the following provisions apply to the sentence imposed:

it is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provisions of section

11m. Florida Statutes. is hereby Imposed for the sentence speci?ed in this

count.

It is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provisions of

Section 193.115 Florida Statutes. is hereby imposed for the sentence speci?ed

in this court. and that the Defendant pay a fine of . pursuant to section 893.135. Florida Statutes.

plus 3 as a 5% surcharge.

It is further ordered that the defendant shall serve a minimum of years before release in

accordance with section 115.912}. Florida Statutes.

(Offenses committed before January 1. 1994.)

It is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provision of section mun. Florida

Statutes. Is hereby imposed for the sentence in this count.

The defendant is adjudicated a habitual felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended term in

accordance with the provisions of section mama). Florida Statutes. The requisite ?ndings by the

court are set forth In a separate order or stated on the record in open count.

The defendant is adjudicated a habitual violent felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended

term In accordance with the provisions of section Wm). Florida Statutes. A minimum term of

yesr(s) must be served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the court are set forth in a

separate order or stated on the record in open court.

The Defendant is adjudicated a violent career criminal and has been sentenced to an extended term in

accordance with the provisions of section W. Florida Statutes. a minimum of must be

served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the Court as set forth in a separate order or stated on

the recOrd In open court. (For crimes committed on or after May 24. 1997)

It is further ordered that the defendant shall serve no less than 25 years in

accordance with the provisions of section may Florida Statutes.

(For ?rst degree murder committed prior to May 25. 1994, and for any other capital felony committed
prior to October 1. 1995)

 

 

 

Defendant is adjudged a prison releasee reoffender In accordance with the provision of section

11mm. FL Statutes.

Defendant is adjudged a sexual predator in accordance with provision of section 113.31. Florida
Statutes.

 

It Is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed

days time served between date of arrest as a
violator following release from prison to the date of The Department of Corrections shall
apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served and un-lorfeitcd gain
time previously awarded on case/count (Offenses committed before October 1. 1989)

 

it Is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed days time served between date of arrest as a
violator following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Correction shall
apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served on caselcount 
(Offenses committed between October 1. 1989. and December 31. 1993)

 

The Court deems the unforfeited gain time previously awarded on the above case/count
forfeited under section mm. Florida Statutes.

The Court allows unforfeited gain time previously awarded on the above case/count. (Gain
time may be subject to forfeiture by the Department of Corrections under section
mu?. Florida Statutes.

It is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed time served between date of arrest as a violator
following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Corrections shall apply
original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served only pursuant to section
921.0017. Florida Statutes. on case! count. (Offenses committed on or after January 1. 1994)

It is further ordered that the sentence imposed for this count shall run Consecutive to/Concurrent with
the sentence set forth In count of this case.

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04I29I2016 12:29 PM

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE

Modi?ed COUNTY, FLORIDA

Resentence

Amended

Corrected

Mltigated

Community Control Violator, Previously Adjudged Guilty

Probation Violator, Previously Adjudged Guilty

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE



Case Number: 
OBTS Number?. 5601187356

SEMEEQE
As to Count 
The Defendant, being personally before this court. accompanied by the Defendant?s attorney of record. MARY CELIDONIO . and having been
adjudicated guilty. and the court having given the defendant an opportunity to be heard and to offer matters in mitigation of sentence. and to show cause why
the defendant should not be sentenced as provided by law, and no cause being shown.

and the Court having on differed imposition of sentence until this date.

 

and the Court having previously entered a Judgment In this case on now resentences the Defendant.

 

and the Court having placed the defendant on and having subsequently revoked the Defendant's.
It Is The Sentence of Court that:

The defendant pay a ?ne in the amount of m. . pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes. plus
5 as the 5% surcharge required by section 938.04. Florida Statutes.

ml 

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Saint Lucie County. Florida.

[3 The defendant is sentenced as a youthful offender in accordance with section 958.04. Florida Statutes.
To Be Imprisoned (check one; unmarked sections are inapplicable):

For a term of Natural Life.

For a term of Natural Life with a 25 year mndatory minimum.
A
The SENTENCE IS SUSPENDED for a period of subject to conditions set forth

 

in this Order.
If a "split" sentence. complete the appropriate paragraph.

[3 Followed by a period of on Community Controi under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
according to the terms and conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

Followed by a period of Probation under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
according to the terms and conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

However. after sewing a period of imprisonment in the balance of the sentence will be suspended and the defendant shall be placed
on ProbationiCommunity Control for a period of . under the supervision of the Department of Corrections according to the terms and
conditions of ProbationICommunlty Control set forth in a separate order.

In the event the defendant is ordered to serve additional spilt sentences. all incarceration portions shall be satisfied before the defendant begins
service of the supervision terms.

 

 

I St. Lucie County File Date: 04I29I2016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE Case Number: 

As to Count(s) 2
By appropriate notation. the following provisions apply to the sentence imposed:
WW

Firearm i 

9.9.9.91.

Drug Traf?cking It is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provisions of
Section 191.115 Florida Statutes. is hereby imposed for the sentence speci?ed
in this court. and that the Defendant pay a ?ne of . pursuant to section 893.135. Florida Statutes.
plus 8 as a 5% surcharge.

Law Enforcement It is further ordered that the defendant shall serve a minimum of years before release in
accordance with section m. Florida Statutes.

(Offenses committed before January 1. 1994.)

Controlled Substance Within it to further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provision of section man, Florida

1,000 Feet of School Statutes. is hereby imposed for the sentence in this count.

Habitual Felony Offender The defendant is adjudicated a habitual felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended term in
accordance with the provisions of section Wm). Florida Statutes. The requisite ?ndings by the
court are set forth in a separate order or stated on the record in open count.

Habitual Violent Felony The defendant is adjudicated a habitual violent felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended

Offender term in accordance with the provisions of section mm). Florida Statutes. A minimum term of

year(s) must be served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the court are set forth in a
separate order or stated on the record in open court.

Violent Career Criminal The Defendant is adjudicated a violent career criminal and has been sentenced to an extended term in
accordance with the provisions of section W, Florida Statutes, a minlrnum of must be
served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the Court as set forth in a separate order or stated on
the record in open court. (For crimes committed on or after May 24. 1997)

Capital Offense it is further ordered that the defendant shall serve no less than 25 years in
accordance with the provisions of section mm Florida Statutes.

(For first degree murder committed prior to May 25. 1994. and for any other capital felony committed
prior to October 1. 1995)

Prison Release [1 Defendant is adjudged a prison releases reoffender in accordance with the provision of section
115mm. FL Statutes.

Sexual Predator [3 Defendant is adjudged a sexual predator in accordance with provision of section 35.21, Florida
Statutes.



Jail Credit 8

Credit for Time Served In it is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed days time served between date of arrest as a

After Violation of violator following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Corrections shall

Probation or Community Control apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served and urn-forfeited gain
time previously awarded on caselcount (Offenses committed before October 1. 1989)

It is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed days time served between date of arrest as a
violator following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Correction shall
apply original jail time credit and shalt compute and apply credit for time served on caselcount 1
(Offenses committed between October 1. 1989. and December 31. 1993)
The Court deems the unforfeited gain time previously awarded on the above caselcount
forfeited under section M. Florida Statutes.
The Court allows unforfeited gain time previously awarded on the above caselcount. (Gain
time may be subject to forfeiture by the Department of Corrections under section
W. Florida Statutes.
It is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed time served between date of arrest as violator
following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Corrections shall apply
original Jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served only pursuant to section
921.0017. Florida Statutes. on case! count. (Offenses committed on or after January 1. 1994)
ConsecutiveICOncurrent 8 
To Other Counts WW

1
St. Lucie County File Date: 12:29 PM

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE

Modi?ed COUNTY, FLORIDA

Resentence

Amended

Corrected

Mitigated

Community Control Violator, Previoust Adjudged Guilty

Probation Violator. Previoust Adjudged Guilty

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE



Case Number: 
OBTS Number: 5601187356

SENTENCE
As to Count 
The Defendant. being personally before this court. accompanied by the Defendant's attorney of record. MARY CELIOONIO . and having been
adjudicated guilty. and the court having given the defendant an opportunity to be heard and to offer matters in mitigation of sentence. and to show cause why
the defendant should not be sentenced as provided bylaw. and no cause being shown.

and the Court having on differed imposition of sentence until this date.

 

and the Court having previously entered a judgment in this case on now resentenoes the Defendant.

 

and the Court having placed the defendant on and having subsequently revoked the Defendant's.

It Is The Sentence of Court that:

The defendant pay a fine in the amount of . pursuant to section 775.083. Florida Statutes. plus
as the 5% surcharge required by section 938.04. Florida Statutes.



 

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Saint Lucie County. Florida.
The defendant is sentenced as a youthfui offender in accordance with section 958.04. Florida Statutes.

To Be Imprisoned (check one; unmarked sections are 

 

For a term of Natural Life.
[1 Fora term of Natural Life with a 25 year mandatory minimum.
'r 1 A
The SENTENCE IS SUSPENDED for a period of subiect to conditions set forth
In this Order.
If a ?split? sentence. complete the appropriate paragraph.
Followed by a period of on Community Control under the supervision of the Department of Corrections

according to the terms and conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

Followed by a period of Probation under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
according to the terms and conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

 

However, after serving a period of imprisonment in . the balance of the sentence will be suspended and the defendant shall be placed
on Probation/Community Control for a period of under the supervision of the Department of Corrections according to the terms and
conditions of Probation/Community Control set forth in a separate order.

 

 

In the event the defendant is ordered to serve additional split sentences. all Incarceration portions shall be satis?ed before the defendant begins
service of the supervision terms.

 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04129l2016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE

Case Number: 


As to Count(s) a

By appropriate notation. the following provisions apply to the sentence imposed:

WW

Firearm

Drug Traf?cking

Law Enforcement

Controlled Substance Within
1.000 Feet of School
Habitual Felony Offender

Habitual Violent Felony
Offender

Violent Career Criminal

Capital Offense

Prison Reiease

Sexual Predator


Jail Credit
Credit for Time Served In

After Violation of
Probation or Community Control

ConsecutiveIConcurrent
As To Other Counts





E1 EIEI El

 

it is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provisions of
Section 311.135 Florida Statutes. is hereby imposed for the sentence speci?ed

in this court. and that the Defendant pay a fine of 5

plus as a 5% surcharge.

It is further ordered that the defendant shall serve a minimum of

accordance with section M. Florida Statutes.

(Offenses committed before January 1, 1994.)

it is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provision of section mmon. Florida

Statutes. is hereby imposed for the sentence in this count.

The defendant is adjudicated a habitual felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended term in

accordance with the provisions of section 1mm?. Florida Statutes. The requisite ?ndings by the

court are set forth In a separate order or stated on the record in open count.

The defendant is adjudicated a habitual violent felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended

term in accordance with the provisions of section Florida Statutes. A minimum term of

year(s) must be served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the court are set forth in a

separate order or stated on the record in open court.

The Defendant is adjudicated a violent career criminal and has been sentenced to an extended term in

accordance with the provisions of section . Florida Statutes, a minimum of must be

served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the Court as set forth in a separate order or stated on

the record in open court. (For crimes committed on or after May 24, 1997)

it is further ordered that the defendant shall serve no less than 25 years in

accordance with the provisions of section mm Florida Statutes.

(For ?rst degree murder committed prior to May 25, 1994. and for any other capital felony committed
prior to October 1. 1995)

. pursuant to section 893.135. Florida Statutes.

 

years before release in

 

 

Defendant ls adjudged a prison releases reoffender in accordance with the provision of section

m, Ft. Statutes.

Defendant ls adjudged a sexual predator in accordance with provision of section 115,21. Florida
Statutes.

 

It is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed
violator following release from prison to the date of The Department of Corrections shall
apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served and un-forfeited gain

days time sewed between date of arrest as a

time previously awarded on caselcount (Offenses committed before October 1, 1989)

 

It is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed days time served between date of arrest as a
violator following release from prison to the date of The Department of Correction shall
apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time sen/ed on caselcount 1
(Offenses committed between October 1. 1989, and December 31. 1993)

The Court deems the unforfeited gain time previously awarded on the above caselcount
forfeited under section M. Florida Statutes.

The Court aliows unforfelted gain time previously awarded on the above caselcount. (Gain
time may be subject to forfeiture by the Department of Corrections under section

W. Florida Statutes.

it is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed time served between date of arrest as a violator
following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Corrections shall apply
original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served only pursuant to section
921.0017, Florida Statutes, on case! count. (Offenses committed on or after January 1. 1994St. Lucie County File Date: 04l29l2016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

EI 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE

Modi?ed COUNTY, FLORIDA

Resentence

Amended

Corrected

Mitigated

Community Control Violator, Previously Adjudged Guilty

Probation Violator, Previously Adjudged Guilty

Defendant: ERIESE TISDALE



Case Number". 
OBTS Number: 5601187356

SENTENCE
As to Count 5,
The Defendant. being personally before this court. accompanied by the Defendant's attorney of record. MARY CELIDONIO . and having been
adjudicated guilty, and the court having given the defendant an opportunity to be heard and to offer matters in mitigation of sentence, and to show cause why
the defendant should not be sentenced as provided bylaw. and no cause being shown.

and the Court having on differed imposition of sentence until this date.

 

and the Court having previoust entered a judgment in this case on now resentences the Defendant.

 

and the Court hving placed the defendant on and having subsequently revoked the Defendants.
It Is The Sentence of Court that:

The defendant pay a ?ne in the amount of 5.. . pursuant to section 775.083. Florida Statutes. plus
as the 5% surcharge required by section 938.04. Florida Statutes.



 

The defendant Is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Saint Lucie County. Fiorida.

The defendant is sentenced as a youthful offender in accordance with section 958.04. Florida Statutes.
To Be imprisoned (check one; unmarked sections are inapplicable):

CI For a term of Natural Life.

For a term of Natural Life with a 25 year mandatory minimum.

3 



The SENTENCE IS SUSPENDED for a period of subject to conditions set forth
in this Order.

If a "split" sentence, complete the appropriate paragraph.

Followed by a period of on Community Control under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
according to the terms nd conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

 

Followed by a period of Probation under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
according to the terms and conditions of supervision set forth in a separate order.

[3 However. after serving a period of imprisonment in . the balance of the sentence will be suspended and the defendant shall be placed
on ProbationiCommunity Control for a period of under the supervision of the Department of Corrections according to the terms and
conditions of ProbationICommunity Control set forth in a separate order.

 

In the event the defendant is ordered to serve additional split sentences. all incarceration portions shall be satisfied before the defendant begins
service of the supervision terms.

 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04l29l2016 12:29 PM

 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

 

 

mummies. at: '9 . 

 

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE

Case Number: 


As to Count(s) 1

By appropriate notation. the following provisions apply to the sentence imposed:

n'

Firearm

Drug Traf?cking

Law Enforcement

Controlled Substance Within
1.000 Feet of School
Habitual Felony Offender

Habitual Violent Felony
Offender

Violent Career Criminal

Capital Offense

Prison Release

Sexual Predator

Warm
Jail Credit
Credit for Time Served In

Resentencing After Violation of
Probation or Community Control

ConsecutiveIConcurrent
As To Other Counts

Cl

8 DD 

It is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provisions of section

775.087. Florida Statutes. is hereby imposed for the sentence speci?ed In this

count.

it is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provisions of

Section Florida Statutes. is hereby imposed for the sentence speci?ed

in this court. and that the Defendant pay a ?ne of . pursuant to section 893.135. Florida Statutes.

plus 5 as a 5% surcharge.

it is further ordered that the defendant shall serve a minimum of years before release in

accordance with section m. Florida Statutes.

(Offenses committed before January 1. 1994.)

it is further ordered that the minimum imprisonment provision of section mmwn. Florida

Statutes. ls hereby imposed for the sentence in this count.

The defendant is adjudicated a habitual felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended term in

accordance with the provisions of section Wu). Florida Statutes. The requisite ?ndings by the

court are set forth In a separate order or stated on the record in open count.

The defendant ls adjudicated a habitual violent felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended

term In accordance with the provisions of section mm). Florida Statutes. A minimum tom of
year(s) must be served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the court are set forth in a

separate order or stated on the record in open court.

The Defendant is adjudicated a violent career criminal and has been sentenced to an extended term in

accordance with the provisions of section . Florida Statutes. a minimum of must be

served prior to release. The requisite ?ndings of the Court as set forth in a separate order or stated on

the record in open court. (For crimes committed on or after May 24. 1997)

It is further ordered that the defendant shall serve no less than 25 years in

accordance with the provisions of section Florida Statutes.

(For ?rst degree murder committed prior to May 25. 1994. and for any other capital felony committed

prior to October 1. 1995)

 

Defendant is adjudged a prison releases reoffender in accordance with the provision of section

mm. FL Statutes.

Defendant is adjudged a sexual predator in accordance with provision of section 175.21, Florida
Statutes.

 

It is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed
violator following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Corrections shall
apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served and un-forfeited gain

days time served between data of arrest as a

 

time previously awarded on case/count (Offenses committed before October 1. 1989)

 

it is further ordered that the Defendant be allowed days time served between data of arrest as a
violator following release from prison to the date of resentencing. The Department of Correction shall
apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time sewed on case/count 1
(Offenses committed between October 1. 1989. and December 31. 1993)

The Court deems the unforfeited gain time previously awarded on the above case/count
forfeited under section W, Florida Statutes.

The Court allows unforfeited gain time previously awarded on the above case/count. (Gain
time may be subject to forfeiture by the Department of Corrections under section

W. Florida Statutes.

It is further Ordered that the Defendant be allowed time served between data of arrest as a violator
following release from prison to the date of The Department of Canadians shall apply
original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served only pursuant to section
921.0017. Florida Statutes. on case! count. (Offenses committed on or after January 1. 1994)

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29l2016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM

 

 

 

 

Modified

Resentence

Amended

Corrected

Mitigated

Community Control Violator, Previously Adjudged Guilty
Probation Violator. Previously Adjudged Guilty

DUBUDDU

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO Case Number: 
Wound:
Consecu?velConcurrentToOther Check one):

any active sentence being sewed.
specific sentences

In the event the above sentence is to the Department of Corrections. the Sheriff of St. Lucie County. Florida. is hereby ordered and directed to
deliver the defendant to the Department of Corrections and the facility designated by the department together with a copy of this Judgment and Sentence
and any other documents speci?ed by Florida Statute.

The Defendant in open court was advised of the right to appeal from this Sentence by ?ling notice of appeal within 30 days from this date with the
Clerk of this Court and the Defendant's right to the assistance of counsel in taking the appeal at the expense of the state upon a showing of indigency.

in imposing the above sentence. the Court further recommends I orders .

DONE AND ORDERED in Open Court at St. Lucie County. Florida. on 

1Circuit Judg%LN VAUGHN

Nunc Pro Tunoto:

 

 

 

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 0412912016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM



i

i
i
i

 

 



. . The C?minal Pu?ishmeutCode at 

1. moss-Ema; . - 2. mm 3. cqum 4. SENIENCINGJUPGE
.

i

1

 

 

 

 

.5

5,.10. Pg??hmnm 11 
elm/tn 5 cam-1.39m   
. 7? 7?19. -  
I wade, these; ?u  EMUF  . .j .. ..
i I. PRIMARY OFFENSE: lfQua??egphas?e check 

. a; . - 1 
5 - FELONY . v: . . - A   . og?g?sg Pawns
i DEGREE . . - .  I 
?t i! 79?! 1" 1?
- a. 7=56. 9=92. '10=116), - .  
Prior felgriy triples Primary O?ang'e paints El

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
       

I

ll.? ADDITIONAL :S?upplemen?ral? page-attached 
DOCKETIE. -, FELIMM . 
DEGREE 7 . LEVEL - :339- 141.5}. 

 

 

- 

II

L:

SECRETION - 
 DESCRIPTION . . . - . -

- 1.7 5'
DESCRIPTION  . . 

- It" Supplemeptalnpagepomts  .
. Total . . Number Tot?!
'Slight 

   

 

 

 

m. we?m'mwm .
I Number
2nd Qegree Murder 240 -

 

   
 

 

 

II II

 

-- . 25?- SexGontaql: 40x  I.  
Mdderate ?a ,1?8xPRIORR emental a eatfadhed? 7 - .
EEIJMM .E 2:3: up?! d??g?s pEscRIPTle POINTS 

DEGREE LEVEL ASE-B  
Ema-W 
.- '35; 3g}. 1? Quit?.5 - 
- . a: $33Dump

.UDBQ .. x.  
?.xh .y
puma x: I
I - 

 

 

(LeveI=Poinis: ?11:92; 1=o.5; 2:0.3, 3:13, 4=2.4. 5=3.6, 6:9, Totem)  . 
. Supplemental page paints . 

3-



Page 1 subt?otag: 167.?!

de Effective for 'o?enses dommi?eE on or after October 1I 1.998 and su?sequent re?sions.

24

d\

.f  

E?ec?v? Date: For offenses committed under the Criminal Punishm?ht Co

 

i
2;
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:25 PM

 

 

Page'l Subtotal: l- I

I V. Legal Status Points - . .
Escape El Fleeing Failure to appear Usupersedeas band lnciarceration El Pretrial intervention or diversion program

 

El Qdurt imposed or post prism releasercor?munity supenlision resulting in a conviction ?1 31 V- 
CommunitySane?qn Vinta?on beforet?ecourtforsen?tei?tcing - . .3 I i I  
.U Pmba?points ton-anyi?olsiion oiber nemfelony conviction I each successive notation OR

New felony convictian 12 points 5:5 . 3 each snowssiue violation If new offense results in conviction . I A. I I
. befoije o?at same ?ne as sentence forviolationof probation points): I I- - each successive violation for a violent felony offender
of spectalconcem when the violation is not based solely on failure to pay costs, ?nes, or restitution 
[3 Newaelonji conviction 24 points KW each su'coeSslve violation for a violent felony offender of
I special concern ifnew offense results in a conviction beforeor atthe same ?ine formulation of probation

 

 

VII. FireannlSerni-Automatic or Machine Gun=180r25 Points I I VII.
Vill.Pn'orSerious Felony?30 Points - - -  
. I I Subtotal SentencePoints . I 
I IX- Enhancem??fs (onlyifthe p?n?laljv offense quali?es forennaneement) . I - .1
ammonium . DmoTrs?Mr . - -. Metal-Vehrcimec . ?l-I?rtninalGangOffenssInsomniac
. I . ., 
comma max? i? .x?is 

.Enhancecl Subtotal Sentence PointsSentence concomitant

 

'i

If total sentence points are'less than or equal to 44, the lowest permissible sentence is any non-state prison sanction. if the total sentence points "eye '22 points or
[83:91. see Section Florida'Statutes, to determine if the court must sentencethe offendento a non-?state prison sanction. .

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

lftotals?entence points are greatethen 44minusZg=MX.T5= I -  -  
totals?niebce points. 3 . lowest138121113395?Winn 5entencemm?nms? 

 

The maldnium sentence is up to the stammry maximum for the primary  any  offenses as provided in s. 775.082, F.S., unless the lowestpennissible
sentence underline Code exceeds the statutory ma?mum?. Soot?: sentences may be b?posed concurrently or consecutively. If total sentence points are greater
than or eqUalgo 363, a life sentence may be imposedyears I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.  ToTanamencEIIuPosaoYears, 3' ?months  DEW. 
P??on 21:. Life DtCounts/Jail .  5t-   
El Community Control . I . . 
El Probation [1 modi?ed a .

 

 

Please check it sentenced aleI habitual offender,'l2lhabituat violent offender! [ll violent career criminal, prison releasee reo?ender; I
-ora E1 mandatory minimnm?applies.- I I. . - 

El Mmsated Departure El Plea Bargain IZIPrisofg Diversion Program  I I .  a.

Othel: Reason . - - . .

SIGNATURE

 

     

    

       

 

 

 

 

. mine! Code effeo? Iwnses comm on or after October 1. 98. and subsaquerrt tensions.

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:25 PM

[f
3

IN THE COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE CASE NO 

V8.

Defendant: ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE
Address: 3245 MURA DRIVE
FORT PIERCE. FL 34982
DOB: 06/13/1987



On April 29. 2016 an Order Assessing Fines. Fees. Costs and Additional Charges was
entered against the Defendant requiring payment of the unpaid amounts of:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMOUNT ASSESSMENT
$50.00 - Public Defender Application
$418.00 CF Court Cost
$151.00 - Rage Crisis Trust Fund
$201.00 - Domestic Violence Surcharge
$100.00 - Cost of Prosecution
$50.00 - Cost of Investigation
$109,135.35 - Public Defender Fees

$1 10,105.35

is ADJUDGED that the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida 201 S. Indian
River Drive, 4th Floor Central Cashiering, Ft. Pierce. Florida 34950 on behalf of St. Lucie
County, Florida. and the State of Florida, Of?ce of Comptroller, Tallahassee. Florida 32399
recover from the Defendant the remaining unpaid ?nes, fees, costs and additional charges
listed above. the amount of which will bear interest at the rate prescribed by law until satis?ed.

FOR WHICH SUM LET EXECUTION ISSUE:
DONE AND ORDERED in open Court in St. Lucie County, Florida, April 29, 2016.

NUNC PRO TUNC TO


 DAN vKueHN
cmcun JUDGE

 

?Accepted forms of Payment are Credit Card. Money Order or Cashier Check Only.

"Upon payment of fees in full, a satisfaction of lien can be requested through the clerk?s office at an .

additional cost.
Automated credit card payments can be made by phone or via the internet.

1 Pay by phone: 1-855-894-2407
1 Pay online: Visit  .

 

Page 1 of 2

 

  

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:34 PM

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

You must pay in full or set up a payment agreement within (30) thirty days of the date of this
notice unless directed to pay through Probtion. If incarcerated. within thirty days of date of
release. Please visit Clerk of the Circuit Court. Collection Department, 201 3. Indian River
Drive. 4th Floor, Fort Pierce. FL to make payment or set up a payment plan.

 

oc

County Attorney

State Attorney THOMAS RICHARD BAKKEDAHL

Defense Attorney MARY CELIDONIO 216 2ND ST. FORT PIERCE, FL 34950
Defendant Send to Jail

 

Page 2 of 2

 

i
t.
E.

St. Lucie County File Date: 04l2912016 12:29 PM
St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:34 PM

 

 

 

 STATE OF FLORIDA

UNIFORM COMMITMENT TO CUSTODY
OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The Circuit Court of NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY

 

in the FALL Term, 2015 in the case of 

 

SIAIEDLELQBIDA
-
ERIESE ALPHONSO TISDALE
Defendant

IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO THE SHERIFF
OF SAID COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF SAID STATE,

The above named defendant having been duly charged with the offense speci?ed herein in the above
styled Court, and he having been duly convicted and adjudged guilty of and sentenced for said offense
by said Court, as appears from the attached certi?ed copies of Indictment/Information, Judgment and
Sentence, and Felony Disposition and Sentence Data form which are hereby made parts hereof;

Now therefore, this is to command you, the said Sheriff, to take and keep and, within a reasonable
time after receiving this commitment, safely deliver the said defendant; together with any pertinent
Investigation Report prepared in this case, into the custody of the Department of Corrections of the
State of Florida; and this is to command you the said Department of Corrections, by and through your
Secretary, Regional Directors, Superintendents and other of?cials to keep and safely imprison the said
defendant for the term of said sentence in the institution in the state correctional system to which you,
the said Department of Corrections, may cause the said defendant to be conveyed or thereafter
transferred. And these presents shall be your authority for the same. Herein fail not.

WITNESS the Honorable DAN VAUGHN

 

Judge of said Court, as also JOSEPH E. SMITH

 
 

 

Clerk, and the Seal thereof, this

29th day of April, 2016
JOSEPH E. SMITH CLERK


LESLEY Noa??g??s??g?b?mm ms .5 A

mus mo CORRECT COPY or THE 
ORIGINAL . . .

SEPH E. SMITH. CLERK

#epuiy glork
ie:   

 

 

Page 1 of 2
By:
Dr:

 

St. Lucie County File Date: 04/29/2016 12:59 PM