CATALINO BURGOS, JR., 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 court held that the district court's reliance on Zeigler was inconsistent with this Court's prior ruling in Montgomery, and that the erroneous jury instruction constituted fundamental reversible error.
[1] A jury instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense that erroneously requires the jury to find intentional causation of death constitutes fundamental reversible e…
[2] A prior supreme court ruling on the fundamental reversible error of an erroneous jury instruction on a lesser included offense is controlling precedent for subsequent cas…
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 intelligenceThe Second District Court of Appeal certified a conflict with the First District Court of Appeal regarding the use of a standard jury instruction on 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 Fundamental Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Burgos v. State, 82 So.3d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct 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 Burgos pending disposition of Montgomery. In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), we held that because defendant Montgomery, who was convicted of second-degree murder, was entitled to an accurate jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of manslaughter by act, the use of the then-standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act constituted fundamental reversible error in his case because it erroneously required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim. We then affirmed the district court’s reversal of Montgomery’s conviction for second-degree murder. We subsequently issued an order in Burgos 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 reliance upon Zeigler v. State, 18 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), is inconsistent with our reasoning in Montgomery and our conclusion that the use of the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction constituted fundamental error that required reversal of Montgomery’s conviction for second-degree murder. Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for review. The decision below is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Second District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Montgomery.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- McGRILL v. State, 82 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)