Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with the court challenging his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the petition, determining that it was unauthorized pursuant to Baker v. State. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court was instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents or other filing submitted by petitioner, unless such filings were signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel could file on defendant's behalf if counsel determined that the proceeding could have merit and could be brought in good faith. Furthermore, since the court found petitioner's petition to be frivolous, the court directed the clerk to forward a certified copy of the opinion to the Department of Corrections' institution or facility where petitioner was incarcerated. View "Broom v. Tucker, etc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty of robbery with a firearm, two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, and grand theft. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a life sentence for robbery with a firearm. However, the trial court failed to include in its oral pronouncement the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm required by section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes. Later that day and without the parties present, the trial court entered a written sentencing order including the mandatory minimum term. On appeal, defendant sought reversal of the sentence ultimately imposed, arguing that correction of his original sentence violated double jeopardy principles. The court held that the trial court did not violate double jeopardy principles in adding the mandatory minimum term to defendant's sentence and defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality in the initial sentence as orally pronounced because it did not include the nondiscretionary mandatory minimum term. However, because defendant had a right to be present when the mandatory minimum term was added to his sentence, the court quashed the decision of the Fifth District and remanded for resentencing with defendant present. View "Dunbar v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of death for the murders of an 84-year-old man and his 79-year-old wife. The court previously affirmed his convictions but reversed his original death sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase. Defendant raised several issues on appeal related to the motion for continuance; the finding that defendant was not mentally retarded; the video of defendant's statement to law enforcement; instructions to the jury; the cross-examination of mental health experts; the prosecution's comments and the trial court's instructions regarding victim impact evidence; and the trial court's consideration and weight to several aggravators and mitigators. After considering defendant's claims, the court affirmed defendant's sentences of death for the murders. View "Snelgrove v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for the first degree murders of three victims and his sentence of death. Defendant raised four issues on appeal: the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; the trial court erred in finding the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator for the murder of Ivory; the trial court erred in assessing the mental health mitigating evidence; and the death sentence was not proportionate. The court held that none of these claims warranted relief and affirmed the convictions and sentence of death. View "Heyne v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus. The court addressed issues related to meaningful appellate review; ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase; summarily denied claims; a motion to amend; and records requested. The court ultimately denied defendant's postconviction motion and his habeas petition. View "Tanzi v. State; Tanzi v. Tucker, etc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated battery. On appeal from the partial denial of postconviction relief, defendant claimed that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence of possible blood stains outside the apartment and failing to present evidence to the jury that defendant's statement to law enforcement was involuntary. Defendant also alleged cumulative error. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief on these issues. View "Walker, II v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first degree murder and sentence of death filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus. The court rejected defendant's claim that the postconviction court improperly denied his motion to disqualify the judge and that the judge demonstrated bias by relying on extra-record information where defendant failed to demonstrate any bias; the postconviction court properly denied relief on defendant's several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice regarding his claim that the prosecutor made several erroneous remarks at trial and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury; the lower court correctly found that defendant's claim that he was innocent of the death penalty was waived because it was not raised on direct appeal; the lower court properly found that defendant's claim that his statement to the police was involuntary was procedurally barred because the issue was already considered and rejected by the court on appeal; and defendant's petition for habeas corpus was denied. View "Krawczuk v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The court affirmed the circuit court order that summarily denied relief on all defendant's claims, holding that the recent decision from the United States Supreme Court in Martinez v. Ryan did not provide defendant with any basis for relief. View "Gore v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and grand theft. Defendant entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, which was the minimum sentence indicated on the Criminal Punishment Code sentencing scoresheet. At issue was whether the State was authorized under section 924.07, Florida Statutes, to appeal a sentence that was otherwise legal on the ground that the trial court improperly initiated a plea dialogue with a defendant without invitation of either party. The court held that the procedural error in disregarding the mandates of the habitual felony offender statute did not render defendant's sentence illegal or otherwise appealable by the State under section 924.07. For this reason, and because the court also concluded that the State was not authorized to appeal the sentence on the ground that the trial court improperly initiated a plea dialogue in this case, the court approved the result reached by the Fourth District. View "State v. McMahon" on Justia Law

Defendant was tried on three counts of armed robbery and three counts of false imprisonment with a weapon or firearm. At issue was the misapplication of the trial court and the First District of the procedure the court set forth in Melbourne v. State for eliminating discrimination during the exercise of peremptory challenges. In this case, the trial court erred in denying defense counsel's peremptory challenge to a female juror, notwithstanding the undisputed gender-neutral reason counsel proffered. The trial court mistakenly assessed defense counsel's reason as if it were assessing a challenge for cause and failed to perform the critical third step of the Melbourne procedure, which required an assessment of the genuineness of counsel's proffered reasons for the strike. Further, the trial court erroneously relieved the State of its burden to establish that the reason for the challenge was pretextual. The court concluded that the First District district perpetuated these errors and quashed the decision of the First District. View "Hayes v. State" on Justia Law