RODRIGO BONILLA, 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 court held that the district court's reliance on Zeigler was inconsistent with the prior ruling in Montgomery, which found the jury instruction error to be fundamental.
[1] A jury instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense that erroneously requires the jury to find intent to cause death constitutes fundamental reversible error when…
[2] A prior supreme court decision holding that an erroneous jury instruction on a lesser included offense constitutes fundamental reversible error mandates reconsideration o…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Bonilla conflicted with the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Montgomery. The court had pr…
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 Fundamental Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Bonilla v. State, 23 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We previously accepted jurisdiction in Montgomery and stayed proceedings in Bonilla pending disposition of Montgomery. In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), we held that because defendant Montgomery, who was convicted of second-degree murder, was entitled to an accurate jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of manslaughter by act, the use of the then-standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act constituted fundamental reversible error in his case because it erroneously required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim. We then affirmed the district court’s reversal of Montgomery’s conviction for second-degree murder. We subsequently issued an order in Bonilla directing the State to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Montgomery.
Upon review of the parties’ responses and the decision below, we conclude that the district court’s reliance upon Zeigler v. State, 18 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), is inconsistent with our reasoning in Montgomery and our conclusion that the use of the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction constituted fundamental error that required reversal of Montgomery’s conviction for second-degree murder. Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for review. The decision below is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Montgomery.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amos Augustus Williams v. State, 123 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)…A 2010); Coiscou v. State, 43 So. 3d 123, 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). . We also decline the State’s invitation in this case to revisit our Montgomery decision. We have reconfirmed the holding in Montgomery in subsequent cases, such as Bonilla v. State, 75 So. 3d 233 (Fla.2011), where we explained: In State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla.2010), we held that because defendant Montgomery, who was convicted of second-degree murder, was entitled to an accurate jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included…
-
Rodrigo Bonilla v. State, 87 So. 3d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…PER CURIAM. We reconsider on remand our opinion in Bonilla v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), which was quashed by the Supreme Court of Florida following its decision in Bonilla v. State, 75 So. 3d 233 (Fla.2011). Pursuant to that mandate we grant Bonilla’s habeas corpus petition and remand for a new trial. Rodrigo Bonilla was charged with second-degree murder. During his 2007 trial, the jury was given a faulty, pre-2008-amendment, manslaughter i…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Norvilus v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Rodrigo Bonilla v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)