Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Constitutional Law
by
The Communications Services Tax (CST) imposed a 6.8 percent tax rate on cable service and a 10.8 percent tax rate on satellite service. DIRECTV, Inc. and Echostar, LLC filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment holding the sales tax provision in the CST unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against enforcement of the provision, and a refund of taxes paid pursuant to the provision. The trial court found that the CST does not violate the Commerce Clause. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the CST is invalid because it favors communications that use local infrastructure and therefore has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the CST is not discriminatory in either its purpose or its effect and therefore does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. View "Florida Department of Revenue v. DirecTV, Inc." on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and of attempted second-degree murder. The trial court, following the jury’s recommendation, sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, raising multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase and claiming that he was entitled to relief after the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the guilt phase claims but vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v. State, holding that where the jury recommended death by a vote of ten to ten, the error in Appellant’s sentencing was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "McMillian v. State" on Justia Law

by
The State charged Defendant with attempted first-degree premeditated murder. The State did not charge or allege the elements of attempted felony murder in the charging document. During trial, the State pursued an attempted felony murder theory. Defendant objected to the State’s proffered jury instruction on attempted felony murder, but the trial court overruled the objection. During closing argument, the State argued both the attempted premeditated murder theory and attempted felony murder. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the attempted first-degree murder counts. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding (1) because the statutory crime of attempted felony murder is a crime separate from attempted premeditated murder, the State must charge the crime of attempted felony murder in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on that crime and proceed under that theory; and (2) the State’s failure to properly charge Defendant with the crimes that it was pursuing was unconstitutional and a violation of Defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him. View "Weatherspoon v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder. The jury recommended the death penalty for each murder by a vote of seven to five. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences of death. Defendant then filed a timely motion for postconviction relief, raising six claims. The circuit court denied the motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief as to Defendant’s ineffective assistance of guilt phase counsel claim but vacated Defendant’s sentences of death, holding that the Hurst error in Defendant’s case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding. View "Robards v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated and felony murder and armed robbery. The jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of eight to four. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death in accordance with the jury’s recommendation. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated the death sentence, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated and felony murder; and (2) Defendant’s death sentence violates Hurst v. State, and the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new penalty phase. View "Newberry v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury recommended death by a vote of ten to two. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court denied relief on all claims following an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed the denial of postconviction relief and also petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief but vacated the death sentence, holding (1) the circuit court correctly denied relief on Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (2) appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (3) Defendant’s death sentence violated Hurst v. State, and the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new penalty phase. View "Abdool v. State" on Justia Law

by
Defendant was convicted of three counts of murder. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation of death for the murder of a five-year-old girl but sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the other two murders. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant then filed a motion for postconviction relief. The trial court denied the motion after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the death sentence, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Defendant’s claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; and (2) because the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two, Defendant’s death sentence violated Hurst v. State, and the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new penalty phase. View "Heyne v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of seven to five. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and imposed a sentence of death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but reversed his death sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for mistrial during the guilt phase; (2) any error by the State in its statements during closing arguments did not rise to the level of fundamental error; (3) the evidence was sufficient to sustain a felony-murder conviction; but (4) the failure to require a unanimous verdict was not harmless in this case. Remanded to the trial court for a new penalty phase. View "Guzman v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, fleeing and eluding, and resisting arrest with violence. At the penalty phase of trial, the jury recommended death by a vote of ten to two. The trial court followed the recommendation and sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s guilt phase claims but reversed and remanded for a new penalty phase, holding that because the non unanimous jury did not make the findings required under Hurst v. State, the error was not harmless, and Defendant was entitled to a new penalty phase under Hurst v. Florida, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Hurst v. State. View "Bradley v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated or felony murder, robbery, and sexual battery. The jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of seven to five. The trial judge followed the recommendation and sentenced Defendant to death. Defendant appealed his death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed the instant motion for postconviction relief, presenting, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied all claims. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion, raising claims of ineffective assistance of resentencing phase counsel and ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. Defendant also petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, as interpreted by the Court’s decision in Hurst v. State. View "Orme v. State" on Justia Law