Santiago v. State, 88 So. 3d 1020

Santiago was involved in a car-wheel dispute; he fired at three men—Smith, Phillips, and Hayes—after a confrontation at a nightclub, killing Hayes and injuring Phillips.
Santiago fled the scene and later engaged in conduct toward responding officers, leading to additional charges of obstructing, resisting, and aggravated fleeing or eluding.
He was charged with one count of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, obstructing or opposing an officer with violence, and aggravated fleeing or eluding; his sole defense to the murder and two attempted murders was self-defense.
During jury charge, the State requested a forcible felony instruction under Fla. Stat. 776.041(1); the trial court gave it without objection from defense counsel.
The postconviction court summarily denied the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the instruction; on review the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the forcible felony instruction was not properly supported by the record.
On remand, the postconviction court may attach record portions or hold an evidentiary hearing; other postconviction claims were affirmed without discussion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the forcible felony instruction was properly applicable.	Santiago asserts no independent forcible felony existed at the self-defense time.	State contends the instruction applies if a separate forcible felony is charged and temporally independent.	Instruction improper; no independent forcible felony shown.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the forcible felony instruction.	Counsel should have objected given lack of independent forcible felony.	Counsel's objection was not raised; the instruction was proper under the theory.	Reversed; remand for further proceedings on this claim.
Whether aggravated assaults could serve as the independent forcible felonies supporting the instruction.	Aggravated assaults occurred after the shooting and were not at the time of self-defense.	Agg. assaults could be the separate forcible felonies if timely connected to self-defense.	No; aggravated assaults could not serve as independent forcible felonies here.
Whether the court’s instruction referenced the correct applicable forcible felony.	Instruction improperly used murder as the applicable forcible felony given the timing.	State posits the instruction could be tied to other independent felonies.	Instruction was misaligned with the facts; supporting record shows error.

Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (test for applicability of forcible-felony instruction depends on a separate forcible felony at time of self-defense)
Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2008) (defines when forcible-felony instruction applies; separate independent felonious act required)
Redding v. State, 41 So.3d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (instruction should not be given unless defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony)
Wilson v. State, 944 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (authority on the independent-forcible-felony requirement)
Zuniga v. State, 869 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (exceptions to self-defense when separate forcible felonies are involved)
Stoute v. State, 987 So.2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (discusses when forcible-felony instruction applies in multiple charges)
Shepard v. Crosby, 916 So.2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (forcible-felony instruction in self-defense cases when no independent forcible felony exists)
Franqui v. State, 59 So.3d 82 (Fla.2011) (postconviction review standard for determining facial sufficiency of claims)