RODRIGO BONILLA, PETITIONER,
v.
THE 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.
Rodrigo Bonilla was convicted of second-degree murder after receiving a faulty jury instruction on manslaughter. On remand from the Florida Supreme Court following Montgomery v. State, the Third District Court of Appeal found that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the jury instruction error, and granted habeas corpus relief by reversing the conviction and remanding for a new trial.
Bonilla is entitled to habeas corpus relief because appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the faulty jury instruction issue on appeal. The deficiency in counsel's performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result. Bonilla's second-degree murder conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
[1] A jury instruction on a lesser included offense that is faulty under then-current standards may entitle a defendant to relief, even if no contemporaneous objection was ma…
[2] Appellate counsel renders ineffective assistance when the deficiency in performance compromises the appellate process, undermining confidence in the fairness and correctn…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result”
Establishes the standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel entitling a defendant to relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodrigo Bonilla was charged with second-degree murder and tried in 2007. During trial, the jury received a faulty, pre-2008-amendment manslaughter ins…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
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 instruction. See In re Amends, to Std. Jury Instrs. In Crim. Cases—Instr. 7.7, 41 So.3d 853 (Fla.2010). There was no contemporaneous objection. Bonilla was found guilty of second-degree murder, as charged.
Bonilla’s appeal from that conviction was pending at the time that the First District Court of Appeal decided Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), affd, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010). However, appellate counsel did not raise that issue in Bonilla’s appeal. This Court affirmed the conviction. Bonilla v. State, 19 So.3d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
Thereafter, Bonilla filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking relief under Montgomery. We denied relief, but certified conflict with that decision. Following its opinion in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), the Supreme Court of Florida quashed the decision and remanded the case.
We conclude that Bonilla is entitled to relief under Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252, because appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance and “the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and cor*1223rectness of the appellate result.” Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906, 909-10 (Fla.2001) (quoting Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985)). As Bonilla was “convicted of second-degree murder after the jury was erroneously instructed on the lesser included offense of manslaughter!,]” he is entitled to relief under Montgomery. 39 So.3d at 258.
The issue should have been raised on appeal. See Lopez v. State, 68 So.3d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Del Valle v. State, 52 So.3d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The issue was not meritless and, had counsel raised it on appeal, this Court would have, at a minimum, affirmed and certified conflict with the First DCA decision. See Del Valle, 52 So.3d at 18-19.
Based on this conclusion, Bonilla is entitled to have his conviction set aside. As entertaining another appeal would be redundant in this case, we reverse the second-degree murder conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand for a new trial. See Del Valle, 52 So.3d at 19.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Wilson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 474 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1985)
- Downs v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2001)
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- In re Amendments TO Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases - Instruction 7.7, 41 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 2010)
- Evangelista Lopez v. State, 68 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- del Valle v. State, 52 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Howell M. Ramsey v. State, 52 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Norvilus v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Rodrigo Bonilla v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)