De La Hoz v. Crews
123 So. 3d 101
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- De La Hoz was convicted of second-degree murder (with a firearm) in April 2010; jury received Florida standard manslaughter-by-act and manslaughter-by-culpable-negligence instructions in effect at that time.
- The manslaughter-by-act instruction given included language requiring that the defendant "intentionally caused the death," which Florida Supreme Court in State v. Montgomery held erroneously required intent to kill and therefore was fundamentally erroneous when the conviction is one step removed from manslaughter.
- The trial record showed the jury was confused by the manslaughter definitions and asked a question distinguishing "intentionally cause the death" from "death by the criminal act of."
- On direct appeal De La Hoz argued the pre-Montgomery manslaughter-by-act instruction was fundamental error and that the additional culpable-negligence instruction did not cure that error; the Third DCA per curiam affirmed and denied certification/citation that would have allowed discretionary review alongside Haygood.
- Haygood v. State (decided Feb. 14, 2013) held that giving the culpable-negligence instruction does not cure the pre-Montgomery manslaughter-by-act error where culpable negligence is not supported by the evidence; De La Hoz’s case was final before Haygood was decided and thus was not in the Haygood “pipeline.”
- The Third District found, based on the procedural history and counsel’s timely efforts to secure review, that denying De La Hoz the same relief as similarly situated defendants would be manifestly unjust and therefore granted habeas relief, vacating the conviction and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | De La Hoz's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the manslaughter-by-act instruction was fundamentally erroneous | Instruction required intent to kill and thus was erroneous under Montgomery | Instruction was standard at the time; not outcome-determinative | Court: Instruction was fundamentally erroneous under Montgomery |
| Whether giving a culpable-negligence instruction cured the error | Culpable-negligence instruction did not cure error where evidence did not support culpable negligence | Culpable-negligence instruction cured the manslaughter-by-act error (per some DCA precedent) or made the error harmless | Court: Where evidence does not reasonably support culpable negligence, that instruction does not cure the pre-Montgomery error (consistent with Haygood) |
| Whether De La Hoz could have been placed in the Haygood “pipeline” / retroactivity | De La Hoz argued his appeal raised identical issue and counsel sought citation to Haygood to allow Supreme Court review | State: Case was final before Haygood and thus not in pipeline; Haygood not retroactive | Court: Pipeline relief unavailable because mandate issued earlier, but relief via habeas is warranted here on manifest injustice grounds given procedural posture and counsel’s timely efforts |
| Whether habeas relief is available after mandate for fundamental error | Relief via habeas is appropriate to avoid manifest injustice where procedural history prevented accompanying Haygood review | State: Habeas relief not warranted; case final; Haygood not retroactive | Court: Granted habeas; vacated conviction and remanded for new trial based on Montgomery/Haygood and manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (holding manslaughter-by-act instruction requiring intent to kill was fundamentally erroneous)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (holding culpable-negligence instruction does not cure the pre-Montgomery manslaughter-by-act error when evidence does not support culpable negligence)
- Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2001) (describing "pipeline" doctrine for applying new rules announced while direct review pending)
- Persaud v. State, 838 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2003) (explaining limits of Florida Supreme Court discretionary review from per curiam district court decisions)