Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Delhall, was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, unlawful use of a firearm, unlawful discharge of the firearm resulting in death or serious bodily harm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At the jury trial the State presented evidence that Delhall murdered the victim because he was, at that time, the only known eyewitness to the murder of another individual (Bennett) with which Delhall’s brother was charged. The jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of eight to four, and the trial court entered an order sentencing Delhall to death. The Florida Supreme Court vacated the sentence, stating that the prosecutor, “by her overzealous and unfair advocacy, appeared to be committed to winning a death recommendation rather than simply seeking justice.” Her improper advocacy continued even after an objection was sustained. In one instance, the judge was forced to step in and specifically admonish her to stop it. Cumulative errors fundamentally tainted the guilt phase, which was especially significant in view of the fact that the jury recommended death by a vote of eight to four, a recommendation that was far from unanimous. View "Delhall v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Butler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of his former girlfriend. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Butler filed a motion to vacate his conviction and death sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The post-conviction court held three evidentiary hearings and denied relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting claims that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court; appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by abandoning the claim that a witness was incompetent to testify at trial; Florida’s lethal injection protocol constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and Butler’s right against cruel and unusual punishment will be violated because he may be incompetent at the time of execution. View "utler v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Based on unethical actions during the 2004-2005 hurricane season, the Legislature enacted Section 626.854(6), Florida Statutes: A public adjuster may not directly or indirectly through any other person or entity initiate contact or engage in face-to-face or telephonic solicitation or enter into a contract with any insured or claimant under an insurance policy until at least 48 hours after the occurrence of an event that may be the subject of a claim under the insurance policy unless contact is initiated by the insured or claimant. An adjuster sued. The trial court upheld the law, accepting an interpretation that it prohibited only in-person or telephonic communication, that it primarily regulates conduct, not speech, and furthers an important governmental interest. The appeals court reversed, finding that the section regulates commercial speech and that the Department failed to demonstrate that prohibiting property owners from receiving information from public adjusters for 48 hours is justified by the possibility that some public adjuster may unduly pressure traumatized victims or otherwise engage in unethical behavior. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute unconstitutionally restricts commercial speech and was not narrowly tailored to serve interests in ensuring ethical conduct by public adjusters and protecting homeowners. View "Atwater v. Kortum" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty of armed robbery of a convenience store when he was 19-years-old and was sentenced to life in prison as a habitually violent offender. At issue was the summary denial of an evidentiary hearing in postconviction proceedings under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court concluded that the district court misapplied the court's precedent and in so doing erred in affirming the summary denial of petitioner's successive motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the court quashed the decision below and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence claim involving only the affidavit of the codefendant. View "Nordelo v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Third District's summary dismissals of his unfair labor practice (ULP) claim. The court concluded that because it found that the actions alleged in petitioner's claim were sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of Florida Statute 447.501, the court concluded that the Third District incorrectly affirmed the Public Employees Relations Commission's dismissal of petitioner's charges; the totality of the circumstances alleged in petitioner's charge were sufficient to demonstrate prima facie evidence that he suffered from an adverse employment action; petitioner's allegations regarding his transfer provided sufficient evidence of adverse employment action to survive summary dismissal; and petitioner sufficiently alleged a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. View "Koren v. Schl. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the petition in this case by way of an unpublished order, determining that the petition was unauthorized pursuant to Baker v. State. In disposing of the petition, the court expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against petitioner. After considering petitioner's show cause response, the court concluded that it failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Petitioner's unauthorized petition was a frivolous proceeding and petitioner had compiled a history of pro se filings that were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review. View "Gaffney v. Tucker, etc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated battery with a weapon. At issue was whether the trial court erred in failing to inform the jury of its right to request a read-back in response to the jury's request for trial transcripts during deliberations. Because the trial judge did not instruct the jury to clarify which portion of the transcript the jury wanted to review, the court could not determine whether the jury was confused regarding specific testimony in this case. As in Johnson v. State, the court would have to engage in pure speculation as to the effect of the trial court's failure to inform the jury of the possibility of a read-back or the trial court's failure to ask which portion of the testimony it wanted to review. Therefore, the trial court committed reversible error and petitioner was entitled to a new trial. View "Hazuri v. State" on Justia Law

Respondent was convicted of first-degree murder of a victim whose body was never discovered. At issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the jury's request for specific trial transcripts during deliberations without advising the jury of the possibility of a read-back. In light of the court's decision in Hazuri v. State, the trial court improperly (1) used language that may have mislead the jury into believing read-backs were prohibited; and (2) informed the jury that there were not transcripts available without informing the jury of the availability of a read-back request. Because the court was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the guilty verdict, respondent was entitled to a new trial. View "State v. Barrow" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. In his motion, defendant challenged his convictions and sentences, including a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death, based on the recantation testimony of an accomplice, which defendant submitted to the trial court as newly discovered evidence. Because the court found competent and substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion that the recantation was untruthful, the court's denial of relief was affirmed. View "Spann v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence of death for the first degree murder of his 64-year-old stepfather. On appeal, defendant raised eight claims: (1) the trial court erred in admitting a statement that could imply that he committed a prior murder; (2) the court erred in permitting the State to present certain victim impact evidence: (3) the court erred in denying the motion to suppress the statements that defendant made to an informant; (4) the court erred in finding that the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated; (5) the court erred in finding the murder was committed for pecuniary gain; (6) the court erred in giving little weight to the evidence pertaining to defendant's cocaine addiction; (7) the death sentence was disproportionate; and (8) the court should consider whether Florida's death penalty scheme was unconstitutional. The court addressed each claim and denied relief, affirming defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Peterson v. State" on Justia Law