Minnich v. State
130 So. 3d 695
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Petitioner was convicted in 2006 of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted first-degree murder; the jury found the aggravated assault count guilty and the attempted second-degree murder as a lesser included offense.
- Appellant’s direct appeal was affirmed; certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied, making the conviction final only after the Supreme Court denial in 2009.
- During the pendency of certiorari, this court issued Montgomery v. State, criticizing a jury instruction that included an intent-to-kill element for manslaughter by act and holding it to be fundamental error.
- For cases pending Montgomery, appellate counsel reportedly failed to raise supplemental briefing on the jury instruction issue; in this case the conviction was not final when Montgomery was decided.
- The Fourth District noted a potential conflict with Williams v. State on fundamental error and certified questions of great public importance about the standard jury instruction on attempted manslaughter and its viability post-Montgomery.
- The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, reversed the conviction, remanded for a new trial, and certified conflict with Williams.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Montgomery apply to Minnich’s non-final conviction? | Minnich argues Montgomery applies because his case was pending when Montgomery was decided. | State contends Montgomery should not retroactively affect this case. | Yes; relief by habeas is warranted. |
| Was the jury instruction on attempted manslaughter by act fundamental error? | Minnich argues the instruction improperly required intent-to-kill, constituting fundamental error. | State argues current law does not render the instruction fundamental error in this context. | Yes; the instruction constituted fundamental error under Montgomery framework. |
| Should the petition be granted and conviction reversed for a new trial, with conflicts certified? | Minnich seeks habeas relief and a remand for new trial; conflict with Williams should be certified. | State opposes relief and certification of conflict or questions of public importance. | Petition granted; conviction reversed and remanded for a new trial; conflict and questions certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (fundamental error from an erroneous manslaughter by act instruction; applicable to pending cases)
- Rushing v. State, 133 So.3d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (applies Montgomery to attempted manslaughter by act cases)
- Lamb v. State, 18 So.3d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (similar fundamental error issue in manslaughter by act context)
- Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (held that fundamental error does not occur when intent-to-kill is included for attempted manslaughter)
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (Florida Supreme Court affirmation of Montgomery framework and conflict implications)