Case ID: so3d_198/html/0849-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CASANUEVA, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Deanthony E. MIKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D14-4538.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 15, 2016.
    Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.
   CASANUEVA, Judge.

Deanthony E. Mike appeals his judgments and sentences for attempted second-degree murder, aggravated assault with a firearm, and discharging a firearm from a vehicle. We are required to reverse because the trial court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury on attempted manslaughter.

“[A] trial court commits fundamental error in giving the standard jury instruction on attempted manslaughter by act where the defendant is convicted of a crime no more than one step removed from the improperly instructed offense.” Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 27 (Fla.2013). Mr. Mike was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, a crime one step removed from attempted manslaughter. The trial court’s instruction to the jury- on attempted manslaughter told the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Mike “committed an act which was intended to cause the death of’ Mr. Smith. In Williams, 123 So.3d at 25, the supreme court held that this instruction was fundamental error. See also Griffin v. State, 160 So.3d 63 (Fla.2015); Hill v. State, 124 So.3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Mr. Mike’s judgment and sentence for second-degree murder is reversed and remanded for a new trial. His judgments and sentences for aggravated assault with a firearm and discharging a firearm from a vehicle are affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LaROSE and SLEET, JJ., Concur. 
      
      . We do not address the other issues Mr. Mike raises as it is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal.