Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions of first-degree murder and his sentences of death on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to vacate judgment of conviction and death sentence. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s postconviction motion and denied habeas relief, holding (1) trial counsel did not render constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to object to the striking of a minority venireperson, failing to object to certain comments made by the trial court and the State, failing to file a motion to preclude the State from seeking the death penalty, and failing to investigate and present certain mitigation evidence; (2) Florida’s method of execution by lethal injection did not violate Appellant’s constitutional rights; and (3) appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the unconstitutionality of the strike of the minority venireperson. View "Frances v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual battery for penetrating the victim’s vagina with his penis and lewd or lascivious molestation for intentionally touching the victim’s breasts, genitals, genital area, buttocks, or the clothing covering them. On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for the trial court to vacate Defendant’s conviction for lewd or lascivious molestation, concluding that double jeopardy prohibited convictions for both sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation in a single criminal episode. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Second District and remanded to the district court for an order affirming Defendant’s convictions, holding that Defendant’s convictions involved offenses of a separate character and type, which were distinct criminal acts that do no violate double jeopardy. View "State v. Drawdy" on Justia Law

In 1995, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and sexual battery. The jury recommended the death penalty, and the trial court imposed the death penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. In 2006, Petitioner filed a third amended motion to vacate the judgments of convictions and sentences, asserting fourteen claims of error. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied Petitioner’s motion for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion for postconviction relief and denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding (1) Petitioner failed to establish that the State violated Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States; and (2) Petitioner’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of sexual battery and one count each of kidnapping, aggravated battery, and attempted robbery. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for each sexual battery count and the kidnapping count. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give a curative instruction relating to statements the prosecutor made during voir dire. The Second District Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper but that there was “no reasonable possibility that the failure to give a curative instruction affected the verdict.” The Supreme Court quashed the Second District’s decision, holding that the prosecutor impermissibly commended during voir dire on Defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent, and the comments were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Marston v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery with a deadly weapon, and arson. Appellant was sentenced to death for the murders. Appellant’s death warrant was signed and his execution set for March 20, 2014. Appellant filed several post-trial motions, all of which were denied. In this appeal, Appellant challenged the denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, his motion to declare Fla. Stat. 922.052 unconstitutional, and his motion to dismiss his death warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of relief on all three motions and denied Appellant’s motion for a stay of execution, holding that the postconviction court did not err in its judgment. View "Henry v. State" on Justia Law

Michelle McCall received prenatal medical care at a United States Air Force clinic as an Air Force dependent. McCall died after delivering her son as a result of severe blood loss. Petitioners filed an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The federal district court found the United States liable under the FTCA. The court concluded that Petitioners’ economic damages amounted to $980,462 and Petitioners’ noneconomic damages totaled $2 million. However, the district court limited Petitioners’ recovery of wrongful death noneconomic damages to $1 million after applying Fla. Stat. 766.118, Florida’s statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages based on medical malpractice claims. The district court subsequently denied Petitioners’ motion challenging the constitutionality of the wrongful death statutory cap. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the application of the statutory cap on noneconomic damages and held that the statute was not unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court accepted certification to answer questions of Florida law and answered by holding the statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages provided in Fla. Stat. 766.118 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution. View "Estate of McCall v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, burglary and robbery. On remand, the trial court imposed a sentence of death for one of the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court granted Defendant’s motion to the extent that he was entitled to a new penalty phase trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court reversed the postconviction court’s judgment that Defendant be afforded a new penalty phase, as counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, and otherwise affirmed. View "State v. Woodel" on Justia Law

Appellant and his codefendant were convicted of kidnapping and first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to death. After the Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentence, Appellant filed a motion to vacate his judgment of conviction for murder and his death sentence and also filed a motion for DNA testing. The postconviction court denied postconviction relief and denied DNA testing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not err in (1) denying relief on some of Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims after an evidentiary hearing; (2) summarily denying the remainder of Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and (3) denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the first-degree murders of his two stepdaughters. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to death for each of the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences on appeal. The Office of Capital Collateral Regional Counsel filed Petitioner's initial postconviction motion, but Petitioner refused to sign the required verification of the motion. After granting extensions of time and giving Petitioner numerous opportunities to file a verified motion, the trial court dismissed the unverified postconviction motion with prejudice. Petitioner appealed and also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming that the trial court erred in allowing him to proceed pro se at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in determining that Petitioner was competent to proceed with postconviction litigation; (2) the trial court did not err in dismissing Petitioner's postconviction motion with prejudice for failing to file a facially sufficient motion; and (3) Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus as relief was not warranted. View "Hernandez-Alberto v. Crews" on Justia Law

In 1986, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded for a new evidentiary hearing. After a new evidentiary hearing was held in 2010, the circuit court denied postconviction relief on all claims. Defendant appealed the denial of his postconviction motion and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's postconviction petition and denied Defendant's petition for habeas corpus, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's postconviction claims on the basis that they were either procedurally barred, refuted by the record, or otherwise without merit; and (2) Defendant did not show he was entitled to habeas relief where he failed to demonstrate either deficient performance on the part of his appellate counsel or prejudice. View "Wickham v. State" on Justia Law