Narrative Opinion Summary
Carlos Viera filed a petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d), claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to argue that the jury instruction on manslaughter by act used during his second-degree murder trial constituted fundamental error. Referencing the precedent set in Horne v. State, 128 So.3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), the court determined that the argument had merit. Consequently, the court reversed Viera's second-degree murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Judges Casanueva, Morris, and Black concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Fundamental Error in Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the use of a flawed jury instruction on manslaughter by act during the trial constituted a fundamental error, warranting the reversal of the conviction.
Reasoning: Referencing the precedent set in Horne v. State, 128 So.3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), the court determined that the argument had merit.
Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court assessed a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the failure to argue a fundamental jury instruction error and found the claim to be meritorious.
Reasoning: Carlos Viera filed a petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d), claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to argue that the jury instruction on manslaughter by act used during his second-degree murder trial constituted fundamental error.
Reversal of Conviction and Remand for New Trialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Due to the recognized fundamental error in the jury instructions, the court reversed the second-degree murder conviction and ordered a new trial.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court reversed Viera's second-degree murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.