Case Title: Leggett v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC10-556

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC10-556 
____________ 
 
CARL LEGGETT,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
[September 6, 2012] 
 
LABARGA, J. 
 
We have for review Leggett v. State, 34 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), in 
which the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the decision of the 
First District Court of Appeal in Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st 
DCA 2009).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.  
We previously accepted jurisdiction in Montgomery and stayed proceedings 
in Leggett pending disposition of Montgomery.  The stay of proceedings in this 
Court was lifted after we issued our decision in State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 
252 (Fla. 2010).  We held in Montgomery that use of the then-standard jury 
instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of manslaughter by act 
 
 
- 2 - 
constituted fundamental error in Montgomery’s case, in which he was convicted of 
second-degree murder, because the instruction erroneously required the jury to find 
that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim.  We subsequently 
issued an order to show cause in Leggett directing the State to show cause why we 
should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and 
remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Montgomery.   
 
Upon review of the parties’ responses and the decision below, we conclude 
that the district court’s reasoning in Leggett is inconsistent with our reasoning in 
Montgomery and our conclusion that the use of the erroneous manslaughter by act 
instruction constituted fundamental error.  Accordingly, based on the district 
court’s certification of conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in 
Montgomery in the present case, we accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for 
review.  The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the 
Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision 
in Montgomery.1 
It is so ordered. 
 
                                         
 
1.  We do not reach the issue that Leggett presented in his petition for habeas 
corpus below—that his appellate counsel was ineffective in not raising a 
fundamental error claim concerning the standard jury instruction.  The district 
court denied relief on other grounds and did not reach that claim.  Thus, we also 
remand that issue for disposition by the district court. 
 
 
- 3 - 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, J., dissents. 
 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Certified 
Direct Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Third District – Case No. 3D09-740 
 
(Miami-Dade County) 
 
Carlos Jesus Martinez, Public Defender and Andrew McBride Stanton, Assistant 
Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Richard L. Polin, Bureau 
Chief, and Heidi Milan Caballero, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida,  
 
for Respondent