CHANCE DAWKINS, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Chance Dawkins sought habeas relief claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to move for rehearing after his second-degree murder conviction based on newly announced precedent in Haygood v. State. The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, finding that Haygood's fundamental error analysis did not apply because the record contained evidence supporting a manslaughter by culpable negligence conviction.
The court denied Dawkins' habeas petition, holding that Haygood is not applicable to his case because evidence in the record could reasonably support a finding of manslaughter by culpable negligence. When the jury receives both the flawed manslaughter by act instruction and an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence that is supported by evidence, the instructional error is not per se fundamental error.
[1] A jury instruction error regarding manslaughter by act is not fundamental error if the evidence reasonably supports a finding of manslaughter by culpable negligence.
[2] The giving of a manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction can cure a fundamental error in giving an erroneous manslaughter by act instruction when the evidence supp…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“giving the manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction does not cure the fundamental error in giving the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction where the defendant is convicted of an offense not more than one step removed from manslaughter and the evidence supports a finding of manslaughter by act, but does not reasonably support a finding that the death occurred due to the culpable negligence of the defendant.”
Establishes the Haygood standard for when the culpable negligence instruction does not cure the instructional error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDawkins was convicted of second-degree murder. At trial, the jury received instructions on both manslaughter by act (which the Supreme Court had previ…
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 Error In Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION
The State of Florida moves for rehearing or clarification of the May 28, 2014 opinion granting Chance Dawkins’ petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanding for a new trial. We grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw the prior opinion and substitute the following in its place:
Chance Dawkins petitions for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel where counsel failed to move for rehearing based on Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013).1 Dawkins argues that his second degree murder conviction must be reversed because the manslaughter by act instruction read to the jury was the same instruction held to. be fundamentally flawed under State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010)2 and that pursuant to Haygood, the additional instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence did not cure the error. We deny the petition.
The Haygood Court held that
giving the manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction does not cure the fundamental error in giving the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction where the defendant is convicted of an offense not more than one step removed from manslaughter and the evidence supports a finding of manslaughter by act, but does not reasonably support a finding that the death occurred due to the culpable negligence of the defendant.
Haygood, 109 So.3d at 741-743. Thus, when there is no evidence that can reasonably support a finding of culpable negligence the instructional error is fundamental. Id. at 743 [emphasis added]. Upon review of the record in Dawkins’ case, there was conflicting testimony regarding intent, and although Dawkins did not rely on a culpable negligence defense, the record shows there existed, in all of the disputed evidence below, some evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found Dawkins guilty of manslaughter by culpable negligence, in contrast to the facts in Haygood. See Smith v. State, 145 So.3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that where there was no evidence from which the jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of *83manslaughter by culpable negligence, Haygood is controlling); Hill v. State, 124 So.3d 296, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that although the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict for attempted second-degree murder, “the jury was deprived of the ability to decide whether [Mr. Hill’s] lack of intent to kill, when considered with all the other evidence, fit within the elements of the offense of [attempted] manslaughter.”). With that in mind, where the jury was also instructed in manslaughter by culpable negligence and the evidence could reasonably support so finding, the error in giving the flawed Montgomery manslaughter by act instructions was not per se fundamental error. We conclude Haygood is not applicable to these facts, and therefore deny the petition for Habeas Corpus.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dominique, 215 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. 2017)…t Court of Appeal in Dominique v. State (Dominique II), 171 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). The district court certified that its decision is in express and direct conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Dawkins v. State, 170 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons we explain, we quash the decision in Dominique II and approve the decision in Dawkins. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nicolas Dominique was charged with…1 / 3
-
Dominique v. State, 171 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…emand would result in a recalculated sentencing scoresheet, then the trial court shall consider a revised scoresheet and resentence the defendant. In reaching our decision, we certify conflict with a recent Third District opinion, Dawkins v. State, 170 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA June 17, 2015), in which our sister court addressed the instant issue, albeit in the context of denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to move for rehearing based on…
-
Singh v. State, 193 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. . We grant Appellee’s January 29, 2016 Motion for Certification and certify conflict with Dawkins v. State, 170 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013)
- Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2001)
- Haygood v. State, 54 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Baker v. McNEIL, 41 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Barbree Croney v. State, 54 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Cubelo v. State, 41 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Jacquaile Hill v. State, 124 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Smith v. State, 145 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)