MYNOR SOLANO, 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 decision should be reconsidered in light of a prior Supreme Court ruling on jury instructions for manslaughter.
Mynor Solano sought review of a Third District Court of Appeal decision, claiming it conflicted with a Supreme Court ruling in State v. Montgomery. Th…
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
Mynor Solano seeks review of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Solano v. State, 35 So.3d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court, State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
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.
Solano seeks review in this Court on the grounds that the district court’s decision in his case conflicts with our decision in Montgomery. Having issued its decision in Solano one day before we issued our opinion in Montgomery, the district court did not have the benefit of considering Montgomery. Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction and grant Solano’s petition for review. The decision under review 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
-
Figueroa v. State, 77 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…proven is “only an intent to commit an act which caused death.” This is clearly different than the prior version of the instruction, which did not clarify the relevant intent requirement for the crime of manslaughter. Recently, in Solano v. State, 76 So. 3d 897, 898 (Fla.2011), the Florida Supreme Court explained its holding in Montgomery as follows: In State v. Montgomery, we held that because defendant Montgomery, who was convicted of second-degree murder, was entitled to an accurate jury instruction on…
-
Mynor Solano v. State, 89 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…On Remand, from the Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Solano v. State, 76 So. 3d 897 (Fla.2011), quashing Solano v. State, 35 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the conviction under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial on the authority of State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla.2010). Reversed.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Mynor Solano v. State, 35 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)