Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Noel Plank, a prospective juror, was found in direct criminal contempt for coming to the courthouse drunk and thereby disrupting the jury selection and distracting the other jurors. The trial judge sentenced Plank to thirty days in jail. Plank appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not appointing him counsel or giving him an opportunity to seek counsel for the contempt proceeding. The Court of Appeal affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether an individual is entitled to counsel in direct criminal contempt proceedings before incarceration is imposed as punishment. The Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision and directed that Plank’s conviction for direct criminal contempt be vacated, holding (1) there is no requirement to appoint counsel in direct criminal contempt proceedings where a defendant is incarcerated for less than six months; but (2) because the allegedly contemptuous conduct for which Plank was incarcerated did not involve conduct that occurred only in the presence of the court, the trial court erred in classifying the conduct as direct criminal contempt. View "Plank v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death after concluding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in accepting Defendant’s waiver of the presentation of mitigating circumstances without appointing special counsel to investigate and present such evidence on his behalf; (2) the presentence investigation report considered by the trial court was sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy the applicable requirements; (3) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s procedural rights by preparing the sentencing order before the sentencing hearing; (4) the trial judge properly discussed in the sentencing order the evidence of Defendant’s motive in committing the murder; (5) Defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; and (6) the sentence of death was proportional. View "Robertson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated assault and cocaine possession, among other criminal offenses, and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The court of appeal affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. Petitioner began filing with the Supreme Court in 2011 and, since that time, filed twenty-three extraordinary writ petitions or notices, none of which were successful. The petition in this case was a pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition and retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Petitioner based upon his numerous meritless and inappropriate filings. The Supreme Court imposed sanctions, concluding that Petitioner failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for his repeated misuse of the Court’s limited judicial resources and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or requests for relief submitted by Petitioner regarding his criminal case unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of second-degree murder and one count of shooting at, into, or within an occupied vehicle. During trial, Defendant asserted that he shot at the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger both in self-defense and defense of others. On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that the jury instruction conflicted with regard to the duty to retreat. The court of appeal reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the instructions at issue were contradictory and negated Defendant’s defense of self-defense and defense of others. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that the instructions at issue clearly stated the law and were not confusing, misleading, or contradictory with regard to the duty to retreat where there is a question of fact as to who was the initial aggressor. Remanded. View "State v. Floyd" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession with intent to sell or deliver and possession of more than twenty grams of cannabis. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. Recognizing that Defendant was convicted under a theory of constructive possession, the court of appeal affirmed Defendant’s conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence standard should apply only where both elements of constructive possession are proven solely by circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court approved the court of appeal’s decision and upheld Defendant’s conviction for constructive possession, holding (1) the circumstantial evidence standard of review continues to apply in Florida; (2) with direct evidence of dominion and control, Defendant’s case could not be considered wholly circumstantial, and therefore, the circumstantial evidence standard of review does not apply; and (3) the State produced sufficient evidence that a rational jury could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Knight v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, during the course of which he actually possessed and discharged a firearm. The convictions arose from a single episode during which Defendant pointed a gun at four men. The trial court imposed consecutive minimum terms of imprisonment for each count. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the trial court was required to impose consecutive sentences under Fla. Stat. 775.087(2)(d). The Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding a trial court is not required under section 775.087(2)(d) to impose consecutive minimum terms of imprisonment for multiple offenses when the offenses arise from a single criminal episode. Remanded. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of both sexual battery on a person under twelve years of age and lewd or lascivious molestation on a person under twelve years of age for a single act. Defendant appealed, arguing that his dual convictions violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The court of appeal concluded that convictions for both lewd or lascivious molestation and sexual battery arising from the same act do not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s separate sentences for capital sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation arising from a single act do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. View "Roughton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and related crimes. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence. Appellant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the trial judge denied. Appellant appealed and also petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court remanded for a new penalty phase and denied Appellant’s habeas petition, holding (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation, including Appellant’s background and intellectual functioning, at the penalty phase; and (2) Appellant’s claims in his habeas petition were unavailing. View "Salazar v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of the first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse of her three-year-old son, Lazaro. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the pervasiveness and the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s multiple improper closing arguments in the guilt phase, which repeatedly invoked “justice for Lazaro” and appealed to the passions of the jury, constituted impermissible prosecutorial misconduct and deprived Appellant of a fair trial. Moreover, most of the improper comments were objected to, and those objections were overruled by the trial court, increasing the prejudicial effect of the comments. View "Cardona v. State" on Justia Law

Fla. Stat. 790.23(1) makes it a criminal offense for a person to own or have in his care, custody, possession, or control any firearm if that person has been convicted of a felony in a Florida court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asked the Supreme Court to determine if, under Florida law, a person is “convicted” for purposes of that statute if the person has pleaded guilty to a felony offense but adjudication for that offense has been withheld. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that, for purposes of the statute, a guilty plea for a felony for which adjudication was withheld does not qualify as a conviction under section 790.23(1)(a). View "Clarke v. United States" on Justia Law