DAVID M. MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a juvenile's conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter despite the defendant's argument that the offense became non-cognizable after State v. Montgomery eliminated the intent-to-kill requirement for manslaughter by act, but certified a question of great public importance regarding the viability of attempted manslaughter.
Attempted voluntary manslaughter remains a cognizable offense in Florida notwithstanding State v. Montgomery's holding that manslaughter by act does not require proof of intent to kill.
[1] Attempted manslaughter remains a cognizable offense under Florida law despite the elimination of the intent-to-kill requirement for manslaughter by act.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter. He challenged his conviction and prison sentence on two groun…
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 Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, a juvenile who was prosecuted as an adult, challenges his criminal conviction and prison sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter on the following two grounds: (1) he was convicted of a nonexistent offense because attempted voluntary manslaughter by act is not a cognizable offense in Florida after our supreme court in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), held that manslaughter by act does not require proof of intent to kill; and (2) the trial court violated Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), when it sentenced him to prison without the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the public interest required the imposition of adult sanctions. We reject appellant’s second claim based upon our decision in Kirkland v. State, 67 So.3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We also reject appellant’s first claim based upon binding precedent in Taylor v. State, 444 So.2d 931 (Fla.1983). However, as in Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review granted, 64 So.3d 1262 (Fla.2011), and Minnich v. State, — So.3d -, 2011 WL 265765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we certify the following question of great public importance: Is attempted manslaughter a viable offense in light of State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010)?
AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
PADOVANO and SWANSON, JJ., and LEWIS, TERRY P., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 84 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…table terms of his leave or the expected date of his return. Therefore, Taylor did not voluntarily leave his employment. Accordingly, Taylor is entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. See also Wisely v. Fla. Unemployment App. Comm’n, 78 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). REVERSED and REMANDED. MONACO and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.…
-
Stewart v. State, 101 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…is conviction and sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter. Appellant presents five issues on appeal. We affirm as to four of those issues without further discussion. We affirm as to the remaining issue based on the authority of Moore v. State, 78 So. 3d 118, 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that attempted voluntary manslaughter by act is no longer a cognizable offense in Florida). AFFIRMED. LEWIS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979)
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Amos Augustus Williams v. State, 40 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Taylor v. State, 444 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1983)
- BIR v. State, 64 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Kirkland v. State, 67 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)