Paul v. State
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19508
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Virón Paul and his brother Vishaul were separately tried for the same homicide; both convicted of second‑degree murder and sentenced to life. Evidence indicated a revenge killing, with Virón supplying the machete and aware of Vishaul’s intent.
- Both trials included the standard manslaughter-by-intentional-act jury instruction later held erroneous in Montgomery v. State.
- Vishaul raised the instruction error on direct appeal; Virón did not and his conviction was affirmed by an unpublished per curiam decision, blocking Florida Supreme Court review under Jenkins.
- The Florida Supreme Court decided Haygood, holding that a manslaughter-by-culpable-negligence instruction does not always cure the error of giving the erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction when the evidence supports manslaughter by act.
- After Haygood, Vishaul was granted a new trial; Virón pursued habeas petitions and a Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to challenge the instruction.
- The trial court summarily denied Virón’s 3.850 claim, reasoning the issue should have been raised on direct appeal and that Virón could not show Strickland prejudice; the appellate court reversed and ordered a new trial as manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Paul) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the manslaughter-by-intent instruction | Waiver/failure-to-raise on direct appeal; relief barred | Counsel ineffective; instruction was fundamentally erroneous and prejudicial | Reversed: counsel ineffective given Haygood and exceptional circumstances; new trial ordered |
| Whether a manslaughter-by-culpable‑negligence instruction cures the error of the erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction | Curing instruction can distinguish Montgomery and avoid reversal | Haygood shows the culpable‑negligence instruction does not cure where evidence supports manslaughter by act | Haygood controls: culpable‑negligence instruction does not necessarily cure the error |
| Whether per curiam affirmance (Jenkins) and prior denials preclude relief now | Prior per curiam affirmance precluded Supreme Court review; procedural bars/earlier denials weigh against relief | Despite procedural history, exceptional circumstances and identical facts to brother’s case justify reconsideration | Court exercised power to correct earlier rulings in exceptional circumstances to avoid manifest injustice |
| Whether Virón can show prejudice under Strickland given his prior petitions and appellate history | No prejudice shown; issue raised previously and relief denied | Prejudice shown because instruction error was fundamental and brother received new trial | Court found manifest injustice and prejudice sufficient to warrant new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (holding standard manslaughter-by-intent instruction erroneous and identifying when that error is fundamental)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (holding a culpable‑negligence instruction does not always cure the manslaughter-by-act instruction error)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1980) (Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review per curiam district court decisions issued without opinion)
- Coleman v. State, 128 So.3d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (appellate courts may reconsider earlier rulings in exceptional circumstances to prevent manifest injustice)