Salonko v. State, 1D08–4879.
Decision Date | 23 June 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 1D08–4879.,1D08–4879. |
Citation | 162 So.3d 40 |
Parties | Frank SALONKO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ON REMAND
In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court's directive in Salonko v. State,
No. SC10–842, 2014 WL 623408, at *1 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2014), we have reconsidered this case pursuant to Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla.2013). Upon doing so, we reverse Appellant's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder and remand for a new trial. We affirm Appellant's conviction and sentence for aggravated assault without further comment.
In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252, 254 (Fla.2010), the Florida Supreme Court held that the crime of manslaughter by act does not require the State to prove that a defendant intended to kill the victim and that giving the standard jury instruction on manslaughter, which required that the State prove the defendant's intent to kill the victim, constituted fundamental error in the case before it. In Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735, 743 (Fla.2013), the Florida Supreme Court held that giving the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction is not cured by also instructing the jury on culpable negligence manslaughter where the defendant is convicted of an offense not more than one step removed from manslaughter and the evidence supports a finding of manslaughter by act but does not reasonably support a finding that the death occurred due to the defendant's culpable negligence.
In reconsidering this case, we hold that the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction constituted fundamental error. The State presented evidence at trial that Appellant, after having what was described as a heated telephone conversation with his former boss, brought a firearm to his former employer's jobsite and shot in the direction of the former boss's uncle after the uncle put himself in between Appellant and his former boss. This evidence did not reasonably support a finding that the victim's death was caused by Appellant's culpable negligence. See De La Hoz v. Crews, 123 So.3d 101, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ( ); De La Hoz v. State, 997 So.2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Guerra
...Supreme Court in Salonko v. State , 137 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 2014) and, on remand, reversed and remanded for new trial in Salonko v. State , 162 So.3d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).4 We note, parenthetically, that during the pendency of this appeal, Guerra filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Cou......
- Williams v. State