Stanley McCloud v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STANLEY MCCLOUD, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-3179 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed May 30, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, David B. Eddy, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PER CURIAM. This case is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme Court, which quashed our earlier decision reported at McCloud v. State, 53 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). McCloud was charged with first-degree murder and the jury was also instructed on the lesser included offenses of second-degree murder, third-degree felony murder, and manslaughter by act. He was convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed the trial court's faulty jury instruction on manslaughter by act. In this case, the lesser included offense of manslaughter by act was two steps removed from the second-degree murder conviction due to the inclusion of the felony murder charge in the jury instructions and on the verdict form. Accordingly, pursuant to the ruling in Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013), we have undertaken a harmless error analysis. See also Pena v. State, 901 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2005). Based upon that analysis, we hold that the trial court s error in instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter by act was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm McCloud s conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. See also, Daugherty v. State, 96 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), rev. granted, No. SC13-1791 (Fla. May 1, 2014). AFFIRMED. TORPY, C.J., PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
