Coleman v. State
128 So. 3d 193
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Coleman was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
- Direct appeal affirmed his conviction and sentence.
- Coleman filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective appellate counsel for not challenging the manslaughter instruction and Montgomery.
- Montgomery v. State held no requirement to prove intent to kill for manslaughter, making the instruction error fundamental.
- Lopez v. State held appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising Montgomery during pendency of the direct appeal.
- The court granted relief, finding manifest injustice and ordering a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifest injustice warrants relief despite law-of-the-case. | Coleman relies on Lopez/Montgomery to obtain relief. | Law-of-the-case prevents relief in a successive petition. | Relief granted; new trial ordered. |
| Whether Montgomery governs the manslaughter instruction issue. | Montgomery controls; appellate counsel should cite it. | Not required to anticipate legal changes during appeal. | Montgomery applies; instructional error remediated. |
| Whether appellate-counsel ineffectiveness was established for not raising Montgomery. | Counsel had a duty to reference Montgomery during pendency. | Counsel not obligated to anticipate changes. | Ineffectiveness established; relief warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (no intent-to-kill requirement for manslaughter; instruction error fundamental)
- Montgomery v. State, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (approval of Montgomery; changes in law recognized)
- Lopez v. State, 68 So.3d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (ineffective assistance for not raising Montgomery during pendency)
- Mediate v. State, 108 So.3d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (law-of-the-case doctrine; exceptional-circumstances exception)
- State v. Akins, 69 So.3d 261 (Fla. 2011) (reconsideration to avoid manifest injustice; appellate courts may correct earlier rulings)
- Muehleman v. State, 3 So.3d 1149 (Fla. 2009) (manifest injustice exception to law-of-the-case)
- Ortiz v. State, 905 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (appellate-counsel duties to stay informed of changes in law)
- Marshall v. Crosby, 911 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2005) (issues in habeas corpus context)