Curry v. State
64 So. 3d 152
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Curry was convicted of second-degree murder of his girlfriend; her body was found in a retention pond after disputes over his drug use and incriminating statements by Curry were admitted.
- At jury-charge, Curry’s counsel requested no lesser-included offenses; the prosecutor and court decided to instruct on manslaughter, specifically manslaughter by act.
- Montgomery had held the then standard manslaughter by act instruction was fundamentally erroneous; Hall had held it did not require an intent to kill, only an intentional act causing death.
- Zeigler created a conflict with Montgomery’s view, but Montgomery ultimately prevailed over Zeigler after the Supreme Court’s intervention.
- Ortiz previously allowed a finding of deficient appellate performance when counsel did not raise a then-controlling authority; the court relies on this framework to assess deficient performance.
- The court grants the petition, reverses the second-degree murder conviction, vacates the sentence, and remands for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was appellate counsel ineffective for not arguing fundamental error in manslaughter by act instruction? | Curry | State | Yes; prejudice shown; relief granted |
| Is the manslaughter by act instruction fundamentally erroneous when paired with a culpable negligence option? | Curry relied on Montgomery | State relied on Zeigler/Hall/post-Montgomery context | Fundamental error evaluated; Montgomery controls after conflict resolution |
| Did Curry waive the fundamental error by agreeing to the instruction or by other conduct? | Curry did not agree to or incorporate the instruction | State | Not waived; no agreement/incorporation; no waiver by theory |
| Did prejudice exist to warrant relief on direct appeal rather than post-conviction review? | Curry would have a direct-appeal remedy if Montgomery conflicted | State | Prejudice established; relief granted via remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (held manslaughter by act instruction not inherently erroneous when other theory allowed)
- Hall v. State, 951 So.2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (manslaughter by act requires an intentional act that causes death, not necessarily an intent to kill)
- Zeigler v. State, 18 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (conflict with Montgomery regarding appropriateness of manslaughter by act instruction)
- Ortiz v. State, 905 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (appellate counsel deficient for not raising subsequent authority after briefing)
- Del Valle v. State, 52 So.3d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (ineffective-assistance framework and relief for fundamental error in manslaughter by act instruction)
- Haygood v. State, 54 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (addressed whether error in manslaughter by act instruction is fundamental when culpable negligence is instructed)
- Joyner v. State, 41 So.3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (waiver analysis for manslaughter by act instruction when defendant agrees and argues)
- Barros-Dias v. State, 41 So.3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (confirms applicability of modern appellate standards on specific manslaughter instructions)