CARL LEGGETT, 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 Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction in a case certified as conflicting with its prior decision in State v. Montgomery. The Court found that the Third District Court of Appeal's reasoning in Leggett was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's Montgomery decision holding that use of a flawed jury instruction on manslaughter by act constituted fundamental error, and remanded for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court concluded that the district court's reasoning in Leggett was inconsistent with the reasoning and holdings in Montgomery regarding the fundamental error nature of the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction. The Court accepted jurisdiction, quashed the district court's decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Montgomery.
[1] Use of an erroneous jury instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense constitutes fundamental error when the instruction misstates an element of the offense.
[2] A court may quash a lower appellate court's decision and remand for reconsideration in light of a controlling precedent established by a higher court.
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 intelligence“use of the then-standard jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of manslaughter by act constituted fundamental error in Montgomery's case, in which he was convicted of second-degree murder, because the instruction erroneously required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim”
Establishes the Court's Montgomery holding that was the basis for reviewing Leggett
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeggett was convicted of second-degree murder. At trial, the jury received a standard jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of m…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Leggett v. State, 34 So.3d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified 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 Leggett pending disposition of Montgomery. The stay of proceedings in this Court was lifted after we issued our decision in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010). We held in Montgomery that use of the then-standard jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of manslaughter by act constituted fundamental error in Montgomery’s case, in which he was convicted of second-degree murder, because the instruction erroneously required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim. We subsequently issued an order to show cause in Leggett 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 reasoning in Leggett is inconsistent with our reasoning in Montgomery and our conclusion that the use of the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction constituted fundamental error. Accordingly, based on the district court’s certification of conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Montgomery in the present case, we accept jurisdiction and grant the 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. 1
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
CANADY, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leggett v. State, 116 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…withdraw our former opinion of May 29, 2013, and substitute the following in its place. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA This matter is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Florida following its decision in Leggett v. State, 103 So. 3d 131 (Fla.2012), quashing our decision in Leggett v. State, 34 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). In compliance with the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate, we grant Carl Leggett, Jr.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand with directions that Leggett’s…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Leggett v. State, 34 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)