ROBERT CHARLES LEVERITT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court commits fundamental error in a DUI manslaughter case by instructing the jury on a presumption of impairment that was invalidated by Miles v. State during the pendency of appeal. The Court declined to definitively answer the question and instead remanded for reconsideration under the standards established in its concurrent Cardenas decision.
The Court answered the certified question in the negative and remanded for reconsideration under Cardenas, holding that an improper presumption of impairment instruction is not fundamental error if the State charged DUBAL with correct jury instructions or if the jury was properly instructed on actual impairment, but the appellate record must clearly establish this.
[1] An improper jury instruction on the statutory presumption of impairment, given contrary to a controlling judicial decision, is not fundamental error if the jury is correc…
[2] A judicial decision announcing a new rule of law or applying an established rule to a new factual situation must be given retrospective application in cases pending on di…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an improper instruction on the statutory presumption of impairment, given contrary to the holding in Miles, is not fundamental error if the State charges DUBAL and the jury is correctly instructed thereon, or if the jury is correctly instructed on actual impairment.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Cardenas for when a presumption of impairment instruction does not constitute fundamental error
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeveritt was tried for DUI manslaughter. During trial, the jury received an instruction based on a statutory presumption of impairment. However, after…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, C.J.
We have for review Leveritt v. State, 817 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question of great public importance: IN A DUI [DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE] MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL, IS IT FUNDAMENTAL ERROR TO GIVE A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IS ERRONEOUS BASED UPON THE PRESUMPTION OF IMPAIRMENT DECLARED INVALID UNDER MILES V. STATE [STATE V. MILES], 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla.2000), WHEN THE OPINION IN MILES WAS ISSUED DURING PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL IN THE INSTANT CASE, AND WHEN MILES CHANGED THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE JURY INSTRUCTION PRESUMPTIONS OF IMPAIRMENT, AND WHEN THE ISSUE OF IMPAIRMENT WAS DISPUTED AT TRIAL AND IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME.
Id. at 897-98.1 Answering a similar certified question in Cardenas v. State, 867 So. 2d 384 (Fla.2004), we held “that an improper instruction on the statutory presumption of impairment, given contrary to the holding in Miles, is not fundamental error if the State charges DUBAL [driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level] and the jury is correctly instructed thereon, or if the jury is correctly instructed on actual impairment.” Id. at 397. We approved the First District decision affirming the convictions of boating under the influence (BUI) manslaughter because we determined from the record that the jury rendered a general verdict of guilt after being properly instructed on the alternative theories of DUBAL and actual impairment. See id. at 396.
In this case, we are unable to ascertain from .the First District’s opinion whether the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was fundamental error based on the criteria set forth in Cardenas. We therefore answer the certified question in the negative, vacate the decision below, and remand for reconsideration in light of Cardenas
It is so ordered.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. . Subject to our holding in Cardenas, we agree with the First District that Miles applies in cases that were pending on direct appeal when Miles was issued. See generally Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992) (holding that any decision of this Court "announcing a new rule of law, or merely applying an established rule of law to a new or different factual situation, must be given retrospective application by the courts of this state in every case pending on direct review or not yet final”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Awilda Rodriguez v. State, 964 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Smith, 598 So. 2d at 1066, dictates that a defendant “must have timely objected at trial if an objection was required to preserve the issue for appellate review,’’ such an objection is unnecessary if the error was fundamental. Cf. Leveritt v. State, 896 So. 2d 704, 705 n. 2 (Fla.2005) (remanding for a determination of whether fundamental error existed, but implying that if the error were fundamental, Smith would require that the change in the law be applied to the pending case).…
-
Leveritt v. State, 924 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…the holding of Miles, is not fundamental error if the State charges driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level (DUBAL), and the jury is correctly instructed thereon, or if the jury is correctly instructed on actual impairment.” Leveritt v. State, 896 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla.2005) (Leveritt II), quoting Cardenas, 867 So. 2d at 397. In considering this question in the context of the instant case, however, the Supreme Court was “unable to ascertain from [the Leveritt I] opinion whether the giving of the presumpt…
Authorities Cited
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Miles, 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2000)
- Cardenas v. State, 867 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2004)
- Leveritt v. State, 817 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)