Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Donald Lenneth Banks was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two. Following the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced Banks to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Banks’ conviction and sentence. Thereafter, Banks filed a motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 to vacate his murder conviction and sentence of death, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied the motion. Banks appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Banks’ postconviction guilt phase claims, denied his habeas petition, but vacated his death sentence, holding (1) trial court provided effective assistance of counsel; but (2) Banks’ death sentence violated Hurst v. State, and the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new penalty phase. View "Banks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated and felony murder. The jury recommended the death penalty 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 convictions but vacated the death sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not err by admitting, for purposes of impeachment, collateral crime evidence that Defendant signed a sworn statement in which he admitted to concealing a metal shank inside his pants while in jail awaiting trial for the victim’s murder; (2) the State did not improperly comment on Defendant’s right to silence; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction; but (4) 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 "Brookins v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to armed burglary of a dwelling, armed kidnapping, attempted first-degree murder, and sexual battery using force or a weapon. Petitioner was sentenced to six concurrent life sentences. Petitioner’s sentences were based on offenses he committed when he was seventeen years old. After the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Graham v. Florida, the trial court set aside Petitioner’s life sentences and, after an evidentiary hearing, resentenced Petitioner to 100 years in prison for the first count and forty years on each remaining count, to run concurrently. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner’s sentence, concluding that Graham does not apply to term-of-years sentences. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fifth District, holding that Petitioner’s 100-year sentence violates Graham and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Henry v. State and Kelsey v. State. Remanded. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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