Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, armed burglary of a conveyance, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellant was sentenced to death. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant later filed a motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death. After an evidentiary hearing on certain of the claims raised in the motion, the circuit court denied postconviction relief. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that his appellate counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying postconviction relief and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that none of Appellant’s claims warranted relief. View "Hayward v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence of death. Appellant later filed an amended motion to vacate judgment of conviction and sentences pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the postconviction motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that that he was denied access to records that related to a colorable claim. View "Twilegar v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an intellectually disabled man, was charged with sexual battery and, in 2004, was involuntarily admitted to nonsecure residential services under Fla. Stat. 393.11. In 2011, Appellant filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 in federal district court against the Director of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, seeking a declaratory judgment that the state’s statutory scheme for involuntarily admitting intellectually disabled persons to residential services violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not provide people who have been involuntarily admitted to nonsecure residential services with periodic review of their continued confinement by someone with authority to release them. The district court granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that section 393.11 is constitutional. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal certified questions of law to the Supreme Court concerning the issue. The Supreme Court answered (1) “support plan” review under section 393.0651 does not require the Agency to consider the propriety of a continued involuntary admission to residential services order entered under section 393.11; and (2) the Agency is not statutorily required to petition the circuit court for the release from an involuntary admission order in cases where the Agency determines that the circumstances that led to the initial admission have changed. View "J.R. v. Palmer" on Justia Law

After a retrial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for both murders. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a seven-claim motion to vacate judgment of conditions and sentences and later amended his motion to add two additional claims. After an evidentiary hearing on some of the claims, the postconviction court denied all of Defendant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and also denied Defendant’s petition for habeas corpus relief, holding (1) the postconviction court properly denied Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the postconviction court did not err in denying Defendant’s claim of newly discovered evidence; (3) Defendant waived his Brady claim; and (4) Defendant’s appellate counsel did not perform ineffectively. View "Brooks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for one murder and to death for the second murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support both of Appellant’s first-degree murder convictions; (2) the trial court did not err in its findings with respect to aggravating and mitigating circumstances; (3) the death penalty was proportionate in this case; and (4) Appellant’s claim that his death sentence was unconstitutional based on Ring v. Arizona was without merit under established Florida precedent. View "Hobart v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was sentenced to death for the murders of four individuals. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief. The postconviction court denied relief after summarily denying several claims and holding an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant appealed the denial of his postconviction motion and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s postconviction motion and denied his habeas petition, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s claims that trial counsel were ineffective during the guilt phase and the penalty phase; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his argument that Florida’s death penalty statute violates the Eighth Amendment’s standards of decency. View "Hunter v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on charges of first-degree murder and robbery with a weapon and pled guilty to both counts. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury returned a unanimous recommendation of death. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Defendant later filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel as to any of his claims. View "Guardado v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was fifteen years old when she took part in an attempted robbery that resulted in a death. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, among other crimes. The trial court imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder. A decade after Defendant’s convictions and sentences became final, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Alabama. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief and to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that her sentence was unconstitutional under Miller and, therefore, she was entitled to be resentenced. The trial court denied the motion on the basis of the First District Court of Appeal’s precedent in Gonzales v. State, which held that Miller did not apply retroactively. The First District affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller applies retroactively to juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final at the time Miller was decided; and (2) based on the Court’s decision in Horsley v. State, the appropriate remedy for any juvenile offender whose sentence is now unconstitutional under Miller is to conduct a resentencing proceeding consistent with the provisions of chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. View "Falcon v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was seventeen years old when he participated in the robbery of a convenience store, during which an owner was killed. The jury convicted Defendant of first-degree murder, among other charges. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder. While Defendant’s appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to correct his sentence, asserting that he was entitled to be resentenced with individualized consideration based on Miller. The trial court agreed with Defendant but concluded that it did not have the discretion to consider a term of years as a sentencing option. Thereafter, the court again sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Fifth District Court of Appeal vacated Defendant’s sentence, concluding that the only sentence now available in Florida for a charge of capital murder committed by a juvenile was life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years. The Supreme Court quashed the underlying decision and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the proper remedy is to apply chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, to all juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under Miller. View "Horsley v. State" on Justia Law

When he was seventeen years old, Defendant was tried as an adult and convicted of, among other nonhomicide offenses, three counts of sexual battery while possessing a weapon, two counts of robbery, and one count of kidnapping. After Defendant was initially sentenced to life imprisonment plus sixty years, in light of the recently issued Graham v. Florida decision, the trial court resentenced Defendant to concurrent thirty-year sentences for the sexual batteries. The remaining sentences were to run consecutively. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Graham does not apply to term-of-years prison sentences because such sentences do not constitute life imprisonment. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under Graham is implicated when a juvenile nonhomicide offender’s sentence does not afford any meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and reform; and (2) because Defendant’s aggregate sentence did not afford him this opportunity, his sentence was unconstitutional under Graham. View "Henry v. State" on Justia Law