All posts by Erin Maloney

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the assertion by Derek De More that he acted in lawful self-defense of another person in the use of deadly force against thirty-six-year-old Javario Barron on June 20, 2020. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with Mr. De More’s assertion that he fatally shot Javario Barron as Mr. Barron was strangling a woman in a car, which was occupied by all three individuals. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation. Investigators found that on the day of the incident Derek De More and a female friend of De More gave Javario Barron a ride to enable Mr. Barron to obtain drugs. The decedent started acting strangely in the car as the three individuals drove away from the location of the drug transaction. Mr. Barron was told to get out of the car by the woman, but he refused. The woman stopped the vehicle in a convenience store parking lot. A security video recording corroborates the woman’s account that Mr. Barron acted aggressively towards her as they argued in the parking lot. According to the woman’s account, Javario Barron threatened her life during this part of the argument. At one point at the convenience store, the woman called 911 to report that a man refused to get out of her car. Nevertheless, Derek De More drove the woman and Javario Barron away from the convenience store before investigators were dispatched to that location.

Mr. Barron and the woman continued to argue in the automobile even after Mr. De More stopped the vehicle in a trailer park. At that location, Javario Barron, who was sitting in the back seat of the vehicle, climbed over the front seat and began to strangle the woman. Fearing for the woman’s life, Derek De More, who was seated in the driver’s seat next to the woman, fired one shot into Mr. Barron’s chest to stop the assault. Mr. Barron and Mr. De More immediately wrestled over the gun and continued to struggle once outside of the automobile. After the men separated, Javario Barron went to a nearby trailer as Mr. De More and the woman fled from the scene.

Although Mr. De More and the woman face criminal charges related to their subsequent attempts to clean Mr. Barron’s blood off the exterior of the automobile, investigators found no evidence to refute Mr. De More’s claim that Javario Barron was shot while he was assaulting the woman in the vehicle. Mr. De More’s account of the incident was corroborated by the account provided by the woman who had been strangled by Javario Barron.

An autopsy was conducted upon Javario Barron by members of the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office. It was determined that Mr. Barron suffered a single fatal gunshot wound to the chest. The location of this wound is consistent with Mr. De More’s account of the incident.

The name of the female witness to the events resulting in Mr. Barron’s death is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as she is a victim of an aggravated assault committed by Javario Barron.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the statements by Derek De More that he reasonably believed that had to use deadly force against Javario Barron to prevent the infliction of imminent death or great bodily harm by Mr. Barron against the aforementioned woman. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against Derek De More.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a male victim acted in lawful self-defense and defense of another and was justified in his use of deadly force against 24-year-old Jermon Quinton Davis on August 9, 2020. Our review determined that Davis entered the apartment of a male and female victim and attacked the female victim, grabbing her throat. The male victim retrieved a handgun. Davis, who was armed, fired at the male victim. The male victim returned fire, killing Davis. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• responding to the scene following the shooting
• reviewing interviews of the victims
• reviewing reenactments of the incident by the victims
• examining physical evidence
• studying photographic and video evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• reviewing text messages and videos sent from Davis to the female victim
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators found that Davis and the female victim have a child together but had not been communicating with each other recently. The male and female victim are now dating and living as a family in the female victim’s apartment, where the incident took place at 4:30 a.m. The female victim had been out several hours earlier and saw Davis. At that point, Davis began repeatedly texting her, indicating that he was going to come to where she lived.

The female victim did not believe Davis knew where she lived, and she eventually started ignoring Davis’s text messages. Unbeknownst to her, Davis was aware of the victim’s apartment complex and he proceeded to spend several hours there, apparently searching for her unit. During that time, Davis sent menacing text messages and videos to the victim, explaining that he was outside her door and was waiting for her. The victim had been ignoring all new messages from Davis, did not see the videos, and went to sleep.

Based on statements from the victims, at around 4:30 a.m., Davis pounded on the victims’ apartment door, waking them. Not knowing Davis was the person at the door, the female victim opened it. Davis entered, shouting, and grabbed the female victim by the throat. The male victim could see the altercation from bed and retrieved his nearby 9mm handgun. Davis, who was armed with a .40 caliber handgun, started firing at the male victim. The male victim fired back and attempted to dodge Davis’s gunfire. Davis collapsed once, then began firing again. The male victim fired back again. Davis stood and attempted to leave the apartment, but collapsed, lifeless, in the doorway. The male victim then called 911.

Messages retrieved from the involved cell phones show menacing text messages from Davis, along with unopened video messages in which Davis promises to lie in wait outside her front door. No other witnesses were located and no known surveillance video of the incident exists.

Investigators recovered 9mm and .40 caliber shell casings consistent with the victims’ descriptions.

Initially, the victims provided a significantly different description of events. Shortly after the incident, both victims told investigators that the female victim, not the male, was the person who shot Davis. Once investigators examined the scene and determined their story did not match the evidence, the investigators confronted the victims. The victims admitted that the male victim fired the shots. They explained that the male victim had a pending firearms charge, and they did not want to make that case worse by admitting he had a gun and fired it. The victims then separately provided reenactments for investigators in which they identified the male victim as the person who fired, and their descriptions were consistent with the physical evidence at the scene.

The Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office determined the manner of death to be gunshot wounds to the torso. Davis was struck four times, in the torso and hip, and one projectile was recovered from his body.

The victims’ names are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as they are victims of a battery and aggravated assault by Davis.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the male victim justifiably believed he and the female victim were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victims.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the assertion by the victim that he acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against 53-year-old Arthur L. Phelps on July 21, 2020. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion that, after a verbal altercation, Phelps advanced on the victim, who was cornered in an area of their residence with no path of escape. Having previously threatened to seriously injure the victim, Phelps then moved in a direction toward the victim while simultaneously reaching for a deadly weapon that was lying within his reach. In response to these actions, the victim fatally struck Phelps with a short sword. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• responding to the scene following the stabbing
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators found that Phelps and the victim were roommates and had been in an argument all day over a dog that Phelps had brought home the night before. The dog had been kept on the back porch and had damaged flowers and gardening supplies that belonged to the victim. After promising to clean up the mess, Phelps went into his room instead, and an hour later, the victim took some of the spilled dirt and pushed it under Phelps’ door. Phelps came out of his room and confronted the victim in the kitchen.

During a loud argument, the victim said Phelps physically threatened him and used the phrase, “If you have a problem with the dirt, then I’ll put you in the dirt.” Backed into a corner, the victim retrieved a short sword from a nearby duffel bag and warned Phelps that he would defend himself. The victim said Phelps continued to approach and reached for a knife on the kitchen table. At that point, the victim took the short sword from its sheath and stabbed Phelps. Phelps chased after the victim, and the two ran out the back door. Injured, Phelps jumped over the side fence, and ran toward the front yard. He collapsed in front of a neighbor’s house, where he succumbed to his injuries.

The victim called 911 and described what took place; the recording is consistent with his later description of events to detectives. Cell phone records are consistent with the timing of the incident and the ongoing disagreement over the dog and the property damage. Surveillance video from a neighbor’s house shows Phelps jumping the fence from his yard and running toward a neighboring house, with blood covering his white t-shirt. Body-worn camera video from a responding officer shows Phelps motionless in the yard and the victim waiting on a nearby front porch, complying with officers and acknowledging that he was the person who stabbed Phelps.

The only independent witness is a third roommate, who was home and in his own room at the time. He did not see the incident but did hear the argument. His description of what he heard is consistent with the victim’s account of the incident.

Responding officers found both the short sword and a steak knife on the kitchen table, consistent with the victim’s description of events.

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office found injuries consistent with the victim’s statements. Toxicology results found cocaine in Phelps’ system at the time of his death. The Medical Examiner determined Phelps’ cause of death to be a stab wound to the torso, perforating the stomach, kidney, and diaphragm, and lacerating the heart.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is a victim of an aggravated assault by Phelps.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the statements by the victim that he reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victim.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that the three deputies from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office were justified in their use of deadly force against 51-year-old Nicholas Kocolis on August 7, 2020. Our review determined that, after several warnings from deputies, Kocolis drew a handgun, aimed it toward deputies, and fired. The deputies returned fire, bringing Kocolis to the ground. While on the ground, Kocolis put his gun to the center of his chest and fired a single shot, taking his own life. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• responding to the scene following the shooting
• reviewing interviews of civilian witnesses
• reviewing interviews of the involved police officers
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. FDLE investigators found that Kocolis had been identified as the suspect who shot at three victims in Seffner 6 1/2 hours before, injuring one person. After the shooting, Kocolis called his girlfriend and admitted to the Seffner shootings, further telling her he was suicidal and that he would not go back to prison.

Deputies located Kocolis’ car in the parking lot of the Burger King at 4649 McIntosh Rd. in Dover at 12:12 a.m. Kocolis was on foot, walking toward his car. A total of ten deputies arrived around the perimeter of the parking lot in quick succession. Responding deputies decided to move in to apprehend Kocolis before he could get into his vehicle and begin a pursuit.

One deputy drove up to Kocolis’ car and parked in a way that blocked the driver’s side door. That deputy exited his vehicle and attempted to talk to Kocolis as Kocolis walked toward the passenger side of the car. He saw Kocolis reaching into the waistband of his pants. The deputy ran for cover as he yelled for Kocolis to show his hands. Moments later, Kocolis produced a handgun and crouched down. He aimed it in the direction of responding deputies and fired. Three deputies returned fire, and Kocolis dropped to the ground. Kocolis was still moving and, after a pause, deputies heard Kocolis fire one shot. Deputies returned fire again. At that point, they determined Kocolis was on his back, no longer moving, but the gun was still in his hand. Using a patrol vehicle as a shield, deputies approached Kocolis, took the gun from his hand, and handcuffed him. They noted a gunshot wound to the center of his chest, which appeared to be self-inflicted. He showed no signs of life.

There is no known body-worn camera or dashboard camera video of the incident and the Burger King did not have security video that recorded the area.

Two civilian witnesses were near the edge of the parking lot as the incident took place. They did not see any of the confrontation, but they heard deputies shouting commands such as “show me your hands” and heard the gunfire that followed. Their description of events is consistent with the deputies’ descriptions.

Based on a count of ammunition in their firearms, the three deputies fired a total of 22 rounds; investigators were able to locate 21 of their shell casings. In addition, investigators found two .40 caliber shell casings at the scene, and Kocolis was the only person involved armed with a .40 caliber firearm. One of the four projectiles recovered from Kocolis’s body was a .40 caliber round. Its characteristics are consistent with being fired from a Glock pistol such as Kocolis’s, but the round was too damaged to determine whether it was an exact match. No other firearm capable of firing that round was involved in the incident. Kocolis’ Glock 22 pistol had six live rounds of ammunition still inside, and ballistics testing of the pistol revealed it was the gun used in the shooting in Seffner 6 1/2 hours before.

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office located 10 wounds in Kocolis’ body, which may have involved a smaller number of bullets passing through one body part and into another. Wounds were located in his face, shoulder, hip, thigh, both legs, and the center of his chest. Powder burns on his skin and a burned area of his shirt around the chest wound indicate Kocolis’ final shot was self-inflicted from very close range. Toxicology testing revealed kratom in Kocolis’s system at the time of his death. The Medical Examiner determined his manner of death to be suicide, caused by a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest with perforation of the heart.

The names of the deputies who returned fire are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as they are victims of an aggravated assault by Kocolis.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the law enforcement officers reasonably believed they were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when they used deadly force. They also did not have a duty to retreat. These findings satisfy Florida Statutes 776.012 and 776.05 and, therefore, under Florida law, the use of deadly force is justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against any of the deputies.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.