Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Hackley was convicted of burglary of a conveyance with a person assaulted, arising out of a 2006 incident in which Hackley assaulted two individuals, one of whom was inside a car. Because the offense occurred less than three years after he had been released from serving another sentence in state prison, the trial court sentenced Hackley to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender under section 775.082(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes. The trial court granted a motion to correct, finding that the crime for which he was convicted did not qualify him for PRR sentencing. The appeals court affirmed. Noting a conflict between districts, the Florida Supreme Court held that burglary of a conveyance with an assault is a qualifying offense under the PRR statute.View "State of Florida v. Hackley" on Justia Law

McMillian was sentenced to death for premeditated first degree murder of his girlfriend. He has given at least five different accounts of events relating to the murder; no two are wholly consistent with each other, and none can be fully reconciled with the evidence. The evidence collected at the scene of a shootout between McMillian and police and the scene of the murder, showed that McMillian’s gun was used in the murder. Evidence also included a security video from a convenience store near the victim’s townhome and phone records and McMillian’s confession. McMillian was approximately one year into a five-year term of felony probation stemming from an incident in Georgia in which McMillian fled police, who were attempting to pull him over, at speeds up to 120 m.p.h. through a residential neighborhood. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Mcmillian v. State of Florida" 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, 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

Defendant appealed an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He also petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus. Defendant raised the following arguments: counsel was ineffective for failing to object or otherwise prevent Livia Romero from being referred to or portrayed as divorced from defendant and married to the victim; counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and uncover mental health mitigation; and the postconviction court erred in summarily denying three ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court denied relief on defendant's claims, affirming the denial of postconviction relief and also denying the habeas petition. View "Valentine v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus with the court challenging his conviction and sentence. Since petitioner's criminal case became final, petitioner had unsuccessfully brought numerous collateral proceedings in the district court seeking relief related to his criminal case. Because the petition in this case was petitioner's eleventh extraordinary writ petition filed with the court, the court issued an order directing him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings. After considering petitioner's response, the court concluded that it failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Further, the court concluded that petitioner's unauthorized petition was a frivolous proceeding brought to the court by a prisoner. View "Richardson v. Tucker, etc." on Justia Law