Giardina v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Giardina v. State

160 So. 3d 476, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281, 2015 WL 719772

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 2015

Docket2D14-1206

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 So. 3d 476 (Giardina v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giardina v. State, 160 So. 3d 476, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281, 2015 WL 719772 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael C. Giardina appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. This court ordered briefing from the State and has fully reviewed the record. At trial, the jury received a modified instruction on justifiable use of deadly force. On direct appeal, Mr. Giardina unsuccessfully argued that the trial court committed fundamental error by omitting a portion of the instruction explaining that deadly force can be permissible when defending against the imminent commission of a forcible felony by an aggressor. See Giardina v. State, 986 So.2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (table decision). In this petition for habeas corpus, which was filed in 2013, he argues that the trial court committed fundamental error resulting in a manifest injustice when it instructed the jury with standard language that he had no duty to retreat if he was not engaged “in an unlawful activity.” Although we agree with Mr. Giardina that this issue was not resolved in prior proceedings, we do not agree that this instruction on the duty to retreat was erroneous, much less that it resulted in the type of manifest injustice that caused the Fourth District to give relief in Furney v. State, 115 So.3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which addressed the “forcible felony” jury ' instruction discussed in Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449 (Fla.2008).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael C. Giardina appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. This court ordered briefing from the State and has fully reviewed the record. At trial, the jury received a modified instruction on justifiable use of deadly force. On direct appeal, Mr. Giardina unsuccessfully argued that the trial court committed fundamental error by omitting a portion of the instruction explaining that deadly force can be permissible when defending against the imminent commission of a forcible felony by an aggressor. See Giardina v. State, 986 So.2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (table decision). In this petition for habeas corpus, which was filed in 2013, he argues that the trial court committed fundamental error resulting in a manifest injustice when it instructed the jury with standard language that he had no duty to retreat if he was not engaged “in an unlawful activity.” Although we agree with Mr. Giardina that this issue was not resolved in prior proceedings, we do not agree that this instruction on the duty to retreat was erroneous, much less that it resulted in the type of manifest injustice that caused the Fourth District to give relief in Furney v. State, 115 So.3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which addressed the “forcible felony” jury ' instruction discussed in Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449 (Fla.2008).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 So. 3d 476, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281, 2015 WL 719772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giardina-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack