Minor v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Minor v. Singletary

730 So. 2d 326, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1896, 1999 WL 89459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2123

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 730 So. 2d 326 (Minor v. Singletary) 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

Minor v. Singletary, 730 So. 2d 326, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1896, 1999 WL 89459 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PER CURIAM.

Herman Minor petitions this Court for an opportunity to file a second appeal on the ground that his appellate counsel overlooked an appealable issue the first time around. Minor contends 1) that the trial judge gave an erroneous oral jury instruction regarding the definition of “excusable homicide,” 2) that the error was fundamental, and 3) that his appellate counsel omitted this fundamental error argument in Minor’s appeal. The record, however, reveals that the jury was provided with the correct jury instructions in written form. Thus, there was no fundamental error. See Wike v. State, 698 So.2d 817 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 714, 139 L.Ed.2d 655 (1998); Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Petition denied.

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

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PER CURIAM.

Herman Minor petitions this Court for an opportunity to file a second appeal on the ground that his appellate counsel overlooked an appealable issue the first time around. Minor contends 1) that the trial judge gave an erroneous oral jury instruction regarding the definition of “excusable homicide,” 2) that the error was fundamental, and 3) that his appellate counsel omitted this fundamental error argument in Minor’s appeal. The record, however, reveals that the jury was provided with the correct jury instructions in written form. Thus, there was no fundamental error. See Wike v. State, 698 So.2d 817 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 714, 139 L.Ed.2d 655 (1998); Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 So. 2d 326, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1896, 1999 WL 89459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minor-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack