Valdes-Pino v. State

23 So. 3d 871, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20051, 2009 WL 4928030
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 23, 2009·No. 3D08-1417·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Valdes-Pino appeals his conviction for second-degree murder asserting fundamental error in the manslaughter instruction given to the jury. 1 We affirm the conviction.

On the record presented, we find that the then-standard instructions given by the trial court (without objection) did not constitute fundamental error. Zeigler v. State, 18 So.3d 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). However, because the contrary analysis in Montgomery v. State, — So.3d-, 2009 WL 350624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), is currently pending review before the Florida Supreme Court, 2 we certify decisional conflict with that First District opinion.

Affirmed. Direct conflict certified.

1

. The defendant's remaining point lacks merit.

2

. State v. Montgomery, 11 So.3d 943 (Fla.2009); oral argument was heard October 7, 2009.

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

Valdes-Pino v. State, 23 So. 3d 871, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20051, 2009 WL 4928030 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

23 So. 3d 871 (Valdes-Pino v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

James C. Marshall v. Department of Corrections
661 F. App'x 971 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
Valdes-Pino v. State
116 So. 3d 521 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Valdes-Pino v. State
75 So. 3d 235 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
Coiscou v. State
43 So. 3d 123 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Solano v. State
35 So. 3d 930 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Walters v. State
30 So. 3d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Leggett v. State
34 So. 3d 51 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
LUMSDON v. State
29 So. 3d 390 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)