Munoz v. State
This text of 61 So. 3d 1152 (Munoz 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.
Opinion
Leonel Munoz seeks habeas corpus relief based on appellate counsel’s ineffective assistance in failing to raise a fundamental error claim, pursuant to State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010). Based on our prior decisions in Cubelo v. State, 41 So.3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), Daniels v. State, 46 So.3d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), and Guerra v. State, 44 So.3d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we deny the motion. Where the jury was instructed on both manslaughter by act and manslaughter by culpable negligence, there was no fundamental error requiring a reversal of the petitioner’s conviction. See Daniels, 46 So.3d at 630.
Habeas corpus denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 So. 3d 1152, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4796, 2011 WL 1262155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.