Barros-Dias v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT FAGNER BARROS-DIAS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D08-1074 Opinion filed June 20, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Daniel H. Sleet, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard M. Fishkin and Diana K. Bock, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA VILLANTI, Judge. Fagner Barros-Dias appealed his conviction and sentence for seconddegree murder. This court affirmed the conviction and sentence based on our prior opinion in Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239, 1245-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), which held that the standard jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter that was in effect at the time of Barros-Dias' trial in 2007 was not fundamentally erroneous, and the decisions in Salonko v. State, 42 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and Singh v. State, 36 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which held that fundamental error did not occur if the manslaughter instruction read by the court gave the jury the option to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter by culpable negligence. See Barros-Dias v. State, 41 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Subsequently however, in Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735, 737 (Fla. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court held that giving the erroneous manslaughter by act jury instruction constitutes fundamental error even if the instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence is given when the evidence actually presented at trial would not support a conviction for manslaughter by culpable negligence. Based on Haygood, the supreme court quashed this court's opinion in Barros-Dias and remanded for reconsideration in light of Haygood. See Barros-Dias v. State, No. SC10-1682, 2014 WL 815114 (Fla. Feb. 27, 2014). On remand, we requested supplemental briefing from the parties as to whether the evidence presented at trial was such that Barros-Dias would be entitled to a new trial under Haygood. Barros-Dias argues that he falls squarely within the holding of Haygood, and the State properly concedes that the evidence considered in light of the holding of Haygood mandates that Barros-Dias receive a new trial. Hence, upon reconsideration in light of Haygood, we reverse Barros-Dias' conviction for seconddegree murder and remand for a new trial with proper instructions. -2- Reversed and remanded for a new trial. WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. -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.
