RAMON PIMENTAL
v.
STATE
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 habeas corpus petition is denied where the petitioner has previously raised the same claims in multiple prior appeals and no fundamental error exists in the jury instruction for the offense of conviction.
[1] Fundamental error in jury instructions cannot be established where the jury instruction for the offense of conviction was not erroneous and there is no claim that the evi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Properly understood, the fundamental error test for jury instructions cannot be met where, as in this case, there was no error in the jury instruction for the offense of conviction and there is no claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support that conviction.”
Court's citation to Knight v. State regarding the standard for fundamental error in jury instructions
Ramon Pimental filed a habeas corpus petition in the Third District Court of Appeal. Pimental had previously filed multiple appeals and habeas petitio…
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
PER CURIAM.
Denied. See Pimental v. State, 301 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Pimental v. State, 187 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Pimental v. Jones, 177 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 2015); Pimental v. State, 195 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Pimental v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 574 U.S. 980, 135 S. Ct. 473, 190 L. Ed. 2d 339 (2014); Pimental v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 560 F. App’x 942 (11th Cir. 2014); Pimental v. State, 83 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Pimental v. State, 59 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 2011); Pimental v. State, 50 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Pimental v. State, 20 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Knight v. State, 286 So. 3d 147, 151 (Fla. 2019) (“Properly understood, the fundamental error test for jury instructions cannot be met where, as in this case, there was no error in the jury instruction for the offense of conviction and there is no claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support that conviction. In such circumstances, one cannot plausibly claim that the conviction ‘could not have been obtained’ without the erroneous lesser included offense instruction or that the error vitiated the basic validity of the trial.”); Marshall v. State, 240 So. 3d 111, 118 n.7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (Generally, “appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to predict future changes in the legal landscape that occur years after a defendant's sentence and conviction become final.”).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 286 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2019)
- Marshall v. State, 240 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)