Molina v. State
150 So. 3d 1280
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Molina was convicted of second-degree murder for a 2007 shooting; jury also received the 2008 interim manslaughter-by-act instruction without objection.
- Jury found Molina guilty of second-degree murder with firearm; he was sentenced to life with a 25-year minimum. Direct appeal affirmed; mandate issued in 2012.
- Molina filed postconviction motions and a pro se habeas petition alleging appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise Montgomery and related authority challenging the manslaughter-by-act instruction.
- The 2008 interim instruction used at trial stated only that intent to commit the act causing death suffices, not premeditated intent to kill.
- Florida courts (Montgomery, Daniels, Haygood) later held that the instruction was erroneous because it failed to correctly instruct on an element of manslaughter by act; such error can be fundamental when the defendant is convicted of a crime no more than one step removed.
- The panel found appellate counsel ineffective for not raising Montgomery/Riesel and concluded the erroneous instruction constituted fundamental error; the court granted habeas relief and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. The court also found trial judge improperly considered Molina’s refusal to admit guilt at sentencing and that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise Montgomery/Riesel and the manslaughter-by-act instruction on direct appeal | Molina: counsel should have raised Montgomery/Riesel; failure was serious deficiency that prejudiced the appellate process | State: even if manslaughter-by-act instruction was erroneous, proper aggravated battery instruction cured any error (not fundamental) | Held: Appellate counsel was ineffective; failure undermined appellate process and warrants new trial |
| Whether the 2008 interim manslaughter-by-act instruction was fundamental error when given and defendant convicted of an offense one step removed | Molina: instruction omitted an essential element and was material and disputed by evidence | State: other correct lesser-offense instructions (aggravated battery) allowed jury to convict on a lesser offense, so error not fundamental | Held: Error was fundamental; correct instruction on one lesser offense does not cure erroneous instruction on another one-step-removed offense; new trial required |
| Whether sentencing judge improperly relied on Molina’s refusal to admit guilt/lack of remorse | Molina: judge’s remarks show sentence considered his claim of innocence, violating due process | State: (implicitly) sentencing remarks did not require reversal or were harmless | Held: Judge impermissibly considered Molina’s refusal to admit guilt; appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise issue; remand for retrial before a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (found standard attempted/ manslaughter-by-act instruction erroneous for omitting an essential element)
- Daniels v. State, 121 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2013) (held 2008 interim manslaughter-by-act instruction shared Montgomery’s infirmity)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (explained fundamental-error rule when erroneous instruction involves an element in dispute and the conviction is one step removed)
- Skinner v. State, 137 So. 3d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (articulated standards for appellate counsel ineffectiveness and cited need to raise favorable controlling decisions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (established two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Hill v. State, 124 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (rejected argument that correct instructions on other lesser offenses cure an erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction)