DENEAL BROWN, 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.
A petitioner is not entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when the trial court's use of a standard jury instruction for manslaughter by intentional act was not fundamental error.
Deneal Brown was convicted of second-degree murder. His appellate attorney did not challenge the trial court's use of the standard jury instruction fo…
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 Standard Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner’s motion for rehearing, certification, and request that the court issue a written opinion is granted. The prior order dated April 16, 2014, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place.
Deneal Brown filed a petition pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d) claiming that his appellate attorney should have challenged, as fundamental error, the trial court’s use of the standard jury instruction for manslaughter by intentional act. We conclude that Mr. Brown is entitled to no relief.
Mr. Brown was charged with second-degree murder, and he testified at trial that his friend shot the victim in self-defense. Defense counsel argued in closing that the victim was the aggressor, and the shooting was self-defense. The State disputed the presence of Mr. Brown’s friend as well as Mr. Brown’s argument *884that the shooting was self-defense. The State argued that Mr. Brown’s act of shooting the victim in the torso demonstrated a depraved mind without regard for human life. The jury found Mr. Brown guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum term in accordance with the jury’s findings that he discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense and that the discharge caused the victim’s death.
Because Mr. Brown was charged with second-degree murder and his intent was not disputed at trial, the only disputed issues the jury had to consider in deciding whether to find Mr. Brown guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter were whether his friend shot the victim or, if not, whether Mr. Brown’s actions were justified as self-defense. Based on the reasoning of Richards v. State, 128 So.3d 959, 963-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), we conclude that Mr. Brown is not entitled to relief.
Petition denied.
ALTENBERND, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holland v. State, 151 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…never disputed that he intended to shoot the victim and that his sole defense was self-defense. “Thus, the only disputed issue for the jury to consider was whether Saldana’s use of force was justified as self-defense.” Id.) see also Brown v. State, 145 So. 3d 883, 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“[T]he only disputed issues the jury had to consider in deciding whether to find Mr. Brown guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter were whether his friend shot the victim or, if not, whether Mr. Brown’s actions were j…
Authorities Cited
- Richards v. State, 128 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)