MAYNOR E. MONNAR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
MAYNOR E. MONNAR,
Appellant,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v.
CASE NO. 1D06-1923
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed June 16, 2008.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County.
Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.
Maynor E. Monnar, pro se, Appellant.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General,
Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Supreme Court, in State v. Monnar, 976 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2008),
quashed the decision of this court reported at 939 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and
remanded the case to this court for a “thorough review of the record” and application
of a harmless error analysis based upon its decision in Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d
517 (Fla. 2007).
The supreme court’s decision did not, however, supersede or disapprove of our
decision in Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), which held that
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.
296 (2004), although decided after Isaac’s conviction and original sentence were final,
apply to any resentencing that took place after Apprendi came down, even
resentencings taking place before Blakely was decided. On this point, Isaac still
controls, not as law of the case, but as governing precedent within the First District.
In Monnar, the supreme court noted that it could not conduct a harmless error
analysis because the record failed to contain enough information or record attachments
for a review. Similarly, this court does not possess a sufficient record to allow such
an analysis. Consequently, we reverse the order under review and remand for the trial
court to reexamine the appellant’s claim in light of Galindez. Should the trial court
again deny the claim, it shall attach record portions establishing that no reasonable
jury could have returned a verdict finding that the appellant did not inflict severe
injury upon the victim. See Galindez, 955 So. 2d at 523.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
WEBSTER, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
2
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.
