Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After denying Ronald K. Schiming’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as repetitive, the Supreme Court instructed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Schiming related to case number 481987CF005037000AOX, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Where Schiming had a persistent history of filing pro se petitions that were frivolous, meritless, or otherwise inappropriate for the Supreme Court’s review, the Court found that Schiming had abused the judicial process and burdened the Court’s limited judicial resources. View "Schiming v. Jones" on Justia Law

After denying Kenneth L. Shirah, Sr.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus the Supreme Court directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Shirah related to his criminal convictions in circuit court case number 301992CF000178XXAXMX unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, holding (1) the habeas petition in this case was facially insufficient; and (2) where this was Shirah’s fourteenth petition or notice pertaining to his convictions filed in the Court since 2000 and the eighth such petition to be dismissed as facially insufficient, and where Shirah’s filings indicate a lack of understanding of the appellate process and an unwillingness to gain an understanding of it, if not constrained, Shirah will continue to abuse the judicial process and burden the Court with frivolous and meritless pertaining to his criminal case. View "Shirah v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Appellant’s successive motion to vacate judgments of conviction, including one of first-degree murder, and sentence of death under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) and Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) were applicable to Appellant’s case, but the Hurst error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his Hurst-induced claim under Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), or his claim that he was entitled to application of chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida. View "Conahan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence of death after resentencing, holding that any error in Defendant’s resentencing did not taint the jury’s recommendation for death.Defendant was convicted for the 1990 first-degree murder of Donna Burnell. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death after the new penalty phase jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of twelve to zero. On appeal, Defendant raised several claims, including a Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 claim and a claim that his death sentence was disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s arguments either involved no errors or errors that were harmless and not prejudicial; and (2) the cumulative effect of any errors did not deprive Defendant of a fair penalty phase hearing. View "Lowe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order summarily denying Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Defendant was not entitled to Hurst relief, nor was he entitled to relief on his other claims.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of ten to two. The trial judge imposed a sentence of death. In his successive motion for postconviction relief, Appellant raised four claims based on Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant’s sentence became final prior to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), Appellant was not entitled to Hurst relief; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his other claims. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this criminal case, holding that the State was not entitled to the speedy trial rule’s recapture period in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191, where the State informed Defendant that it had terminated its prosecutorial efforts and failed to notify Defendant that new and different charges based on the same conduct were filed before the speedy trial period expired.The State charged Defendant with tampering with a witness and later dismissed the charges. After the speedy trial period expired, Defendant became aware of new charges based on the same conduct. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for discharge without allowing the State the opportunity to try Defendant within the recapture period. The Fourth District reversed, receding from its prior decisions requiring that the defendant be notified of the charges within the speedy trial period. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that, under the circumstances in this case, the trial court correctly denied the State the recapture period and discharged Defendant. View "Born-Suniaga v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order summarily denying Appellant’s third successive motion to vacate a sentence of death under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief as a matter of law.Appellant was convicted of murder and sexual assault and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on appeal. At issue in this appeal was the summary denial of Appellant’s third successive motion for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as a matter of law, Appellant was not entitled to relief, as the Court had previously addressed and rejected each of the claims presented, and Appellant did not provide a compelling argument for the Court to reconsider its previous rulings. View "Zack v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses. The jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death by a vote of twelve to zero. Appellant later filed a successive postconviction motion to vacate his death sentence in light of hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) and Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The postconviction court denied relief relief after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any Hurst error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Appellant’s remaining claims were similarly without merit. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s orders summarily denying Appellant’s fifth and sixth successive motions for postconviction relief filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, the postconviction court's order denying Appellant’s motion to amend his sixth successive postconviction motion, and the postconviction court's order denying Appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims.Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Pending before the Supreme Court were Appellant’s challenges to the summary denials of his fifth and sixth successive postcondition motions and the denials of his motion to correct illegal sentence and motion to amend. The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s orders, holding that Appellant’s arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "Jimenez v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s order denying Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. The death sentence became final in 1988. Appellant later filed a motion pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 seeking relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The motion was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Hurst did not apply retroactively to Appellant’s sentence of death; and (2) Appellant was not denied due process by the substitution of judges on his case between the denial of his motion for postconviction relief and his motion for rehearing. View "Jennings v. State" on Justia Law