THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CASTRO GUERRA, 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.
The State appeals a trial court's order granting post-conviction relief and ordering a new trial for Castro Guerra. The appellate court affirms, holding that Guerra's case should have been treated the same as similarly situated defendants under Florida Supreme Court precedent, particularly Haygood v. State and the Montgomery pipeline framework.
The court affirms the trial court's order, holding that Guerra's case should have been treated identically to Cúbelo and Salonko, and that there is no principled basis to distinguish Guerra's treatment from these defendants who obtained relief upon reconsideration in light of Haygood v. State.
[1] A trial court may grant post-conviction relief and order a new trial when a defendant was not treated consistently with similarly situated defendants in prior proceedings…
[2] Defendants who were treated differently than similarly situated defendants in prior proceedings may be entitled to the same relief afforded to those defendants upon recon…
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“Guerra's case should have been placed in the Montgomery 1 pipeline and, had this occurred, Guerra would have obtained the same result (reversal and remand for a new trial) as those defendants whose very cases this court relied upon in originally affirming Guerra's conviction.”
Establishes the core holding that Guerra was entitled to the same treatment as similarly situated defendants under the Montgomery framework.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCastro Guerra was convicted at trial and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in Guerra v. State, 44 So.3d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). The trial c…
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 Petition For Post Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Castro Guerra’s motion for post-conviction relief and ordering a new trial. We affirm, holding that the trial court correctly determined that Guerra’s case should have been placed in the Montgomery 1 pipeline and, had this occurred, Guerra would have obtained the same result (reversal and remand for a new trial) as those defendants whose very cases this court relied upon in originally affirming Guerra’s conviction. See Guerra v. State, 44 So.3d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (affirming conviction and relying upon Cubelo v. State, 41 So.3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010))2 and Salonko v. State, 42 So.3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).3
The trial court granted relief, finding that Guerra should have been treated the same as the defendants in Cúbelo and Salonko. We agree, and note that this court and our sister courts have afforded the same relief to similarly-situated defendants upon reconsideration in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013). See, e.g., Moore v. State, 165 So.3d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Paul v. State, 183 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Dowe v. State, 162 So.3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Moninger v. State, 137 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Smith v. State, 145 So.3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Barros-Dias v. State, 141 So.3d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
While Guerra’s case presents unique circumstances, the circumstances are not unprecedented, and we have on such previous occasions granted the very relief afforded by the trial court. See, e.g., De la Hoz v. Crews, 123 So.3d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). We see no principled basis to distinguish Guerra’s treatment from Cúbelo and Sal-onko, and find no error in the trial court’s order granting a new trial.4
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013)
- Salonko v. State, 42 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Baker v. McNEIL, 41 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Cubelo v. State, 41 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Viron Paul v. State, 183 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- DE LA HOZ v. Crews, 123 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Castro Guerra v. State, 44 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Cubelo v. State, 137 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Fagner Barros-Dias v. State, 141 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)