Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether the use of real time cell site location information to track a defendant violates the Fourth Amendment if probable cause was not provided to access and use that information. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence derived from the real time cell site information obtained from his cell phone for lack of probable cause. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the application for the order obtained by officers authorizing them to obtain the information did not contain a sufficient factual basis on which to issue a search warrant but that a warrant was not required to use Defendant’s real time cell site location data to track him on public streets where he had “no expectation of privacy.” The Fourth District affirmed. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fourth District, holding (1) Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location signals transmitted solely to enable the private and personal use of his cell phone, even on public roads, and therefore, probable cause was required; and (2) probable cause did not support the search in this case, and the evidence obtained as a result of this search was subject to suppression. Remanded. View "Tracey v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several offenses, but the trial court entered an order declaring Defendant incompetent to proceed to trial. The trial court later held a competency hearing, during which defense counsel stipulated that Defendant was competent to proceed. The court did not enter a written order determining that Defendant was competent to proceed to trial, but the matter nevertheless proceeded to a jury trial. Defendant was found guilty of two charges. On appeal, Defendant argued that the lack of a written order adjudicating him competent required reversal of his conviction and a new trial. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the lack of a written order could be cured without a new trial because the trial court found Defendant competent based upon the stipulation of defense counsel. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Fifth District in part, holding (1) Defendant’s stipulation as to his own competency did not absolve the trial court from its duty to independently make a determination of Defendant’s competency to proceed; and (2) the remedy for such a violation depends upon the circumstances of each case. View "Dougherty v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual battery. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. On appeal, Defendant challenged only the propriety of the death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence of death, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court did not fail to remain neutral during the penalty-phase proceedings; (3) the trial court’s findings on aggravators and mitigators were not in error with the exception of its finding of an avoid arrest aggravator, which error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that his death sentence was unconstitutional based on Ring v. Arizona; and (5) the death sentence in this case was a proportionate penalty. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The trial court subsequently ordered a new trial, after which Appellant was again convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Appellant later filed a postconviction motion. The postconviction court ultimately denied Appellant’s postconviction motion. Appellant appealed the denial of his postconviction motion and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Appellant’s claims and denied habeas corpus relief, holding (1) the postconviction court properly found that Appellant was competent to proceed with his postconviction proceedings, correctly denied Appellant’s prosecutorial misconduct claim, and properly denied Appellant’s claim of a Brady violation; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to habeas relief based on his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "Huggins v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising twenty-nine claims. The circuit court denied each of Defendant’s claims. Defendant appealed the denial of five claims and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising two additional claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Defendant’s claims and denied Defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding (1) the postconviction court properly denied Defendant’s claims of Brady violations, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, improper juror communication, and cumulative error; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to habeas relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "Whitton v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the trial court properly considered in mitigation Defendant’s IQ score in conjunction with evidence of his low cognitive functioning; (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that the trial court failed to consider, find, and weigh as a mitigating circumstance that Defendant had a history of drug and alcohol abuse; (3) trial court did not err in finding as aggravating circumstances that the homicide was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner and was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; (4) Defendant’s claim that Florida’s death penalty scheme is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona was without merit; (5) there was sufficient evidence to affirm Defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder; and (6) Defendant’s death sentence was proportional to other cases where the Court has upheld a sentence of death. View "Martin v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of four counts of armed sexual battery and ultimately sentenced to four life sentences as upward departure sentences. The second district affirmed Petitioner’s four life sentences. Petitioner later filed a motion to correct illegal sentence under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), claiming that under Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington he was entitled to a jury trial at his resentencing to determine the factual basis for the upward departure. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that Petitioner’s sentences were within their statutory maximums. The Second District affirmed, concluding that Petitioner’s claim of Apprendi error was not a ground for relief under rule 3.800(a) because it was not preserved and raised on direct appeal. The Supreme Court quashed the Second District’s decision and remanded to the district court for the application of a harmless error analysis, holding that Petitioner’s four life sentences were unconstitutionally enhanced under Apprendi and Blakely, and therefore, the sentences were illegal under rule 3.800(a). View "Plott v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the kidnapping, capital sexual battery, and first-degree murder of an eleven-year-old girl. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death for the murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, presenting several claims. The postconviction court summarily denied all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that criminal defense counsel should have unlimited authority to conduct interviews to probe jurors for possible misconduct was without merit; (2) the postconviction court properly denied Appellant’s claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding its role; (3) the postconviction court did not err when it held that Florida’s capital sentencing statute is not unconstitutional; and (4) Appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Florida’s lethal injection procedures was without merit. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

In Sirota v. State, the court of appeal certified a question to the Supreme Court regarding the scope and proper application of the Court’s decision in Morgan v. State. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Alcorn v. State, wherein the Court receded from Morgan with respect to the standard for establishing prejudice as to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in which the defendant rejected a plea offer based on misadvice. After Alcorn became final, the Court issued an order directing the defendant below to show cause why the Court should not summarily quash the court of appeal’s decision in Sirota and remand for reconsideration in light of Alcorn. After the parties responded, the Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal’s decision in Sirota and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s decision in Alcorn. View "State v. Sirota" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of Monquell Wimberly. Appellant was also convicted of the first-degree felony murder of Patrick Stafford, for which Stafford was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentence of death, holding (1) there was no fundamental error in the admission of a videotaped statement Appellant gave to detectives after he was taken into custody; (2) there was no prejudicial error in the admission of a codefendant’s out-of-court statement; (3) the admission of testimony concerning an eyewitness’s fear of the shoot did not constitute fundamental error; (4) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claim of juror misconduct or premature deliberation; and (5) competent, substantial evidence supported the verdict of guilt as to the first-degree murder conviction and the felony murder conviction. View "Sheppard v. State" on Justia Law