Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder. In a previous habeas corpus proceeding, Petitioner sought release from incarceration, arguing that the assistant state attorney who signed the information and indictment in his criminal case was not authorized to sign informations and indictments because he did not have an oath on file. The court of appeal denied the petition as time-barred and meritless. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court asking the Court to compel the court of appeal to carry out its “legal ministerial duty” to grant him habeas corpus relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as an unauthorized use of the writ of mandamus, as mandamus is not the proper vehicle to seek review of an allegedly erroneous decision by a lower court.View "Mathews v. Crews" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition to invoke the First District Court of Appeal’s all writs jurisdiction, asserting that he was serving an illegally enhanced sentence. The First District dismissed the petition in an unelaborated per curiam decision. Petitioner sought review, alleging that the First District’s decision expressly and directly conflicted with several other district court decisions regarding illegal sentences. The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Court “lacks discretionary review jurisdiction to review an unelaborated per curiam dismissal from a district court of appeal that is issued without opinion or explanation or that merely cites to a case not pending review in, or reversed or quashed by, the Court, or to a statute or rule of procedure.”View "Wells v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder under the felony murder and premeditated theories in the deaths of Berthum Gibson and Keenethia Keenan and guilty of first-degree murder under the felony murder theory in the death of Desmond Robinson. Defendant was sentenced to death for the deaths of Gibson and Keenan. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions under both the felony murder and premeditation theories; (2) the trial court did not err in giving additional weight to the felony murder aggravating circumstance; (3) Defendant’s death sentences were proportional; and (4) Defendant’s death sentences were not unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona.View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed an amended motion to vacate his judgment and sentence, which the postconviction court denied. Defendant appealed and filed an accompanying petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the postconviction court did not err in finding Defendant competent to proceed in his postconviction proceedings; (2) the postconviction court did not err in denying Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and voir dire; (3) the postconviction court did not err in summarily denying Defendant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for a change of venue; (4) Florida’s method of execution for lethal injection is constitutional; and (5) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that his right against cruel and unusual punishment would be violated because he may be incompetent at the time of execution.View "Franklin v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual battery with great force. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence of death. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising several allegations of error. The postconviction court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of relief and denied Defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding (1) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims relating to the State’s alleged use of Defendant’s co-defendant as a state agent and letters written between the co-defendant and Defendant; and (3) appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

The appellate counsel of Defendant, a prisoner under a sentence of death, requested that the Supreme Court depart from its established procedure for requiring counsel to proceed with diligent appellate advocacy during mandatory review in death penalty cases where the defendant expresses a desire to be executed. Defendant in this case wished to argue in favor of the death sentence. Under Rule 4-1.2(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, a lawyer is required to abide by her client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation. Appellate counsel sought an order permitting him to withdraw from representation to avoid an alleged violation of his ethical responsibility to his client. The Supreme Court denied current counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that there was no ethical violation in requiring counsel to continue to prosecute this appeal for the benefit of the Court in meeting its statutory and constitutional duties. View "Robertson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, a prisoner under a sentence of death for whom a death warrant had been signed, filed a successive motion for postconviction relief raising an as-applied challenge to Florida’s lethal injection protocol based on his allegation that he suffers from the medical condition porphyria. The circuit court denied Appellant’s claim without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant appealed and produced an affidavit by a physician stating that, in the physician’s expert medical opinion, a substantial risk existed that the use of midazolam hydrochloride as the first drug of Florida’s lethal injection protocol would cause Appellant “extreme or excruciating pain.” In light of these allegations, the Supreme Court relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Appellant’s claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that Florida’s lethal injection protocol, as applied to him, violated the Eighth Amendment because he did not show that allegedly suffering from porphyria creates a “substantial risk of serious harm” upon the injection of midazolam. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted after a jury trial for the first-degree murders of an elderly couple, whom he cut and stabbed. Sentences of death were imposed for both murders, but the case returned to the circuit court. After a new penalty phase, Appellant was sentenced to death for only one murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's sentence of death. Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court concluded that Appellant was entitled to a new penalty phase trial. The Supreme Court reinstated Appellant's sentence of death, holding that Appellant was not entitled to any relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington standard. View "State v. Woodel" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with drug trafficking and possession after the vehicle he was driving was stopped by a deputy sheriff who had noticed an inconsistency between the actual color of the vehicle and the color indicated on the vehicle’s registration. Defendant moved to suppress the results of the stop as products of an unlawful, warrantless search. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the vehicle was legally stopped for investigative purposes and that the odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to conduct a search. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The district court reversed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that a color discrepancy alone does not provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a color discrepancy, standing alone, does not justify initiating a stop to determine if the law has been violated. View "State v. Teamer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Richard England was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to death. England later filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied relief on all claims. Petitioner appealed and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that the postconviction did not err in concluding that counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance during both the guilt phase and penalty phase of trial. The Court also denied habeas relief, holding that England failed to establish that appellate counsel was ineffective, and the remainder of his claims were procedurally barred or without merit. View "England v. State" on Justia Law