Yousel L. Rivera v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 6D2024-0735
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-0735 Lower Tribunal No. 11-CF-15936 _____________________________

YOUSEL L. RIVERA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Nicholas Thompson, Judge.

July 11, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Yousel L. Rivera appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted first-

degree premeditated murder of a law enforcement officer with a firearm. 1 He raises

numerous issues on appeal, all of which we find unavailing. Specifically, we find:

1) evidence of his possession of marijuana during the shooting was admissible

because it was inextricably intertwined with the charged offense; 2) evidence of his

“abnormal brain pathology” and prior head injuries was inadmissible to show he did

not act with the requisite intent, see, e.g., Evans v. State, 946 So. 2d 1, 10–11 (Fla.

2006), Reaves v. State, 639 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1994), and Bunney v. State, 603 So. 2d

1 This is Mr. Rivera’s second appeal. Rivera v. State, 235 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). 1270, 1272–73 (Fla. 1992); 3) the bullet fragment and test-fired casings were

properly admitted because there was no evidence of tampering and, even if that were

not the case, the admission of such evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt; 4) no Brady 2 violation occurred because the parties had equal access to the

information in question and there was no evidence the State willfully or

inadvertently suppressed the evidence, see, e.g., Pagan v. State, 29 So. 3d 938, 946

(Fla. 2009) and Provenzano v. State, 616 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1993); 5) there was

sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was

premeditated; 6) the record supported the inclusion of a voluntary intoxication

instruction, see Patrick v. State, 104 So. 3d 1046, 1058 (Fla. 2012) and Gibbs v.

State, 904 So. 2d 432, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); 7) the State’s actions during closing

arguments were not improper; and 8) the imposition of a life sentence was not

unconstitutional, see, e.g., Barwick v. State, 361 So. 3d 785, 794 (Fla. 2023) and

Boesch v. State, 368 So. 3d 454, 455–56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Ana M. Davide, of Ana M. Davide, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnathan P. Hurley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2