JOHN VALDES-PINO, 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 established that an erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by act constitutes fundamental reversible error.
[1] A jury instruction on manslaughter by act that erroneously requires the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the victim's death constitutes fundamental re…
[2] A district court's reliance on a prior decision is inconsistent with a subsequent supreme court ruling when the prior decision's reasoning conflicts with the supreme cour…
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 intelligenceThe Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal regarding the effect of an erroneous jury instruction on…
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 Valdes-Pino v. State, 23 So.3d 871 (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 Valdes-Pino 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 Valdes-Pino 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 DGA 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
-
Valdes-Pino v. State, 116 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. We reconsider on remand our opinion in Valdes-Pino v. State, 23 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), which was quashed by the Supreme Court of Florida following its decision in Valdes-Pino v. State, 75 So. 3d 235 (Fla.2011). Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate we reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. The defendant was charged in 2005 with second-degree murder. At trial, the jury was given the same faulty, pre-2008-amendment man…1 / 3
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)
- Valdes-Pino v. State, 23 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)