Filing # 93611549 E-Filed 08/02/2019 05:10:30 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NUMBER: 2016 CF 15738 A

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

MARKEITH LOYD,
Defendant.
_____________________/

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

The Defendant, through his undersigned counsel, moves this Court to enter an order
consolidating Mr. Loyd’s 2016 and 2017 case. As grounds in support, Defendant states the
following:

1. Mr. Markeith Loyd is facing two capital counts for the shooting deaths of Ms. Sade
Dixon & her unborn child in 2016 and is facing the death penalty.
2. Mr. Markeith Loyd is also charged with the 2017 shooting death of Master Sgt. Debra
Clayton and is facing the death penalty.
3. It is alleged that by the State that Mr. Loyd shot Sgt. Clayton with the same gun used in
the homicide of Ms. Dixon.
4. It is further alleged by the State that Mr. Loyd’s shooting of Sgt. Clayton demonstrates
Mr. Loyd’s consciousness of guilt in the shooting of Ms. Dixon.
5. The State previously filed their intent to use evidence surrounding the circumstances of
Sgt. Clayton’s murder in Mr. Loyd’s 2016 case involving the homicide of Ms. Dixon.
6. The Defendant filed an objection to the State’s notice because the introduction of Sgt.
Clayton’s shooting would impermissibly become a feature of Mr. Loyd’s 2016 case.
7. Subsequently, the Court ruled that the State could introduce: 1. Evidence and witnesses
that establish the gun used in the shooting of Ms. Dixon and Sgt. Clayton is the same gun,
2. That the Defendant was in possession of that gun at the time of arrest, 3. Testimony of
Ms. Bryant to establish that she identified the Defendant and notified Sgt. Clayton of his

1
 presence at Walmart, 4. Testimony regarding Ms. Bryant’s statements to Sgt. Clayton,
the events preceding the shooting, including Sgt. Clayton’s statements to the Defendant,
and 5. Testimony of Mr. Striby to identify the defendant and to testify regarding the
events immediately following the shooting.
8. Further, the Court precluded the introduction of the Walmart video, Sgt. Clayton’s radio
transmission, and any evidence that would indicate to the jury that Sgt. Clayton was
killed. This ruling was without prejudice should the Defendant “open the door.”
9. Although the Court precluded evidence that Sgt. Clayton was killed, it is without a doubt
that most if not all jurors know or can surmise that Sgt. Clayton died in the line of duty
considering Mr. Loyd’s case has inundated Orange County’s news cycle for years.
10. Undersigned counsels would be ineffective if considerable time was not spent during voir
dire addressing the shooting death of Sgt. Dixon.
11. Because of this Court’s ruling, the Defendant is now in the position where he must
substantially defend against the State’s theory that the shooting of Sgt. Clayton is
evidence of consciousness of guilt in Ms. Dixon’s murder through lay and expert witness
testimony.
12. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.151(b) provides that related offenses can be
consolidated on a timely motion by either side.
13. Relevant considerations for consolidation include the expense, efficiency, convenience,
and judicial economy incident to having one trial as opposed to two. Livingston v. State,
565 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 1988) citing State v. Vazquez, 419 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1982);
Crum v. State, 398 So.2d 810 (Fla.1981).
14. Prejudice to a defendant, however, will outweigh these considerations. Id.
15. In Mr. Loyd’s case, the Defendant would be prejudiced should he be required to defend
against Sgt. Clayton’s homicide on two separate occasions.
16. In Fotopolous, the Supreme Court ruled that consolidation of cases was appropriate in
part because each offense would have been admissible at the trial of the other.
Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784, 790 (Fla. 1992) (Even if there had been separate
trials, evidence of each offense would have been admissible at the trial of the other to

2
 show common scheme and motive, as well as the entire context out of which the criminal
action occurred.)
17. Here consolidation of both cases is appropriate because Sgt. Clayton’s homicide is now a
feature in Ms. Dixon’s homicide, the Defendant would be prejudiced by defending Sgt.
Clayton’s homicide twice, and consolidation is consistent with the principle of judicial
economy.

WHEREFORE, for the above reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to enter an order granting this motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was served

via Efiling notification on the Office of the State Attorney this 2nd day of August 2019.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Terence M. Lenamon_____
Terence M. Lenamon
Florida Bar No. 970476
Daniel Schwarz
Florida Bar No. 84665
245 S.E. 1st St.
Suite 404
Miami, FL 33131
p. 305-373-9911
f. 305-503-6973