Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery with a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts of guilt; but (2) vacated the sentence of death, holding that a death sentence in this case was not proportionate to other cases in which the sentence of death has been upheld, and in fact, this case was indistinguishable from other cases involving the single aggravator of a murder during the commission of a robbery where the death penalty has been vacated. Remanded for imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. View "Yacob 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

In this case, the district court concluded that satisfying the foundational requirements under the past recollection recorded exception to hearsay need not come from the declarant’s testimony. Afterwards, the Supreme Court decided Polite v. State, in which the Court held that the past recollection recorded exception requires the witness to indicate that the events were fresh in her mind when the statement was made, as well as to attest to the accuracy of the memorandum or record. Because the victims in this case did not vouch at trial for the accuracy or correctness of their written statements, the Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Polite. View "McNeal v. State" 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

Petitioner was charged with robbery with a firearm. At trial, Petitioner’s theory of defense was that he abandoned the stolen property prior to threatening or using force. Before the case was submitted to the jury, Petitioner requested a special jury instruction on abandonment. The trial court gave the requested special instruction but modified it to require that the victim be aware of the abandonment. The district court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Petitioner failed to abandon the property, and therefore, the trial court’s modification of the proffered special instruction did not render it harmful, where the abandonment of property defense had no application to Petitioner’s case. View "Rockmore v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under the age of twelve in violation of Fla. Stat. 800.04(5)(b). Petitioner sought a downward departure sentence, but the trial court concluded it had no discretion to impose a downward departure sentence because Fla. Stat. 775.082(3)(a)(4) imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment for violations of section 800.04(5)(b). The district court affirmed the trial court’s imposition of a twenty-five year sentence, concluding that the legislature intended to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in section 775.082(3)(a)(4). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the plain meaning of the statutory language, the trial court does not have the discretion to impose a sentence below the twenty-five year minimum set forth in section 775.082(3)(a)(4). View "Rochester v. State" 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