Solano v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Florida Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Florida Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant sought review of the decision of the Third District Court of appeal in Solano v. State on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicted with a decision of the Court in State v. Montgomery. Having issued its decision in Solano one day before the court issued its opinion in Montgomery, the district court did not have the benefit of considering Montgomery. Accordingly, the court accepted jurisdiction and granted defendant's petition for review.
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC10-1350 ____________ MYNOR SOLANO, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [October 27, 2011] LABARGA, J. Mynor Solano seeks review of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Solano v. State, 35 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court, State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010), we held that because defendant Montgomery, who was convicted of second-degree murder, was entitled to an accurate jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of manslaughter by act, the use of the then-standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act constituted fundamental reversible error in his case because it erroneously required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim. We then affirmed the district court s reversal of Montgomery s conviction for second-degree murder. Solano seeks review in this Court on the grounds that the district court s decision in his case conflicts with our decision in Montgomery. Having issued its decision in Solano one day before we issued our opinion in Montgomery, the district court did not have the benefit of considering Montgomery. Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction and grant Solano s 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. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct Conflict of Decisions Third District - Case No. 3D07-3210 (Dade County) Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew M. Stanton, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, -2- for Petitioner Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Richard L. Polin, Bureau Chief, and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, Florida, for Respondent -3-
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.
