Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was tried and convicted for the murder of a five-month-old. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence of death but remanded for resentencing on the aggravated child abuse conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence. The lower court denied Defendant's claims. Defendant then appealed, asserting that his counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the appeal. Thereafter, Defendant filed a successive motion to vacate judgment and sentence with special request for leave to amend, asserting that his counsel was ineffective. The circuit court summarily denied the motion and subsequent rehearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant's motion was untimely, the postconviction court properly summarily denied the motion; and (2) because Defendant did not address the merits of his claim on appeal, and because the postconviction court did not rule on the merits, the Court would not reach the merits of his claim. View "Lukehart v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for several crimes against four separate victims. Two of the victims - Iris White and Jackie McCahon - were murdered, while two were not. This appeal stemmed from Defendant's first-degree murder conviction and accompanying death sentence for the killing of Jackie McCahon. Defendant raised thirteen claim on direct appeal. The Supreme Court denied each of Defendant's claims, determined that the death penalty was proportional to Defendant's crime, and affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising sixteen claims. The postconviction court ultimately denied all of Defendant's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief from his conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder of McCahon. View "Johnson v. State " on Justia Law

Defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for several crimes against four separate victims. Two of the victims - Iris White and Jackie McCahon - were murdered, while two were not. This appeal stemmed from Defendant's first-degree murder conviction and accompanying death sentence for stabbing Iris White to death inside her home. The Supreme Court denied each of Defendant's claims on appeal, found the death penalty to be proportionally warranted, and affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising twenty claims. Ultimately, the postconviction court denied Defendant's postconviction motion in its entirety. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief from his conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder of White. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a minor. The court of appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial. At Petitioner's second trial, the trial court partially closed the courtroom during the testimony of the victim pursuant to Fla. Stat. 918.16(2), which provided for partial closure of the courtroom during the testimony of a victim of a sex offense upon the victim's request. Appellant was again convicted of the charges. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not denied his right to a public trial by the trial court's partial closure during the victim's testimony; and (2) a partial closure pursuant to section 918.16(2) acceptably embraces the requirements set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Waller v. Georgia. View "Kovaleski v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed an order of the circuit court denying his initial postconviction motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death. Defendant also petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the postconviction court's denial of relief as to Defendant's guilt phase claims; (2) reversed the denial of relief as to the penalty phase and remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding because counsel failed to fully investigate and present mitigating evidence regarding Defendant's childhood and mental health; and (3) denied Defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "Simmons v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed an order entered by the circuit court finding him competent to be executed. Defendant's primary argument on appeal was that the circuit court improperly found him sane to be executed based on its finding that his delusions were a manifestation of a normal Christian belief, and alternatively, that the circuit court's determination was a misapplication of the standard pronounced in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Panetti v. Quarterman. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order finding Defendant sane to be executed, holding (1) there was competent, substantial evidence to support the circuit court's determination that Defendant was sane to be executed; (2) Defendant's argument concerning Panetti was without merit; and (3) Defendant's due process claims were without merit. View "Ferguson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, a prisoner under sentence of death, appealed the circuit court's order denying his second successive motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 and the order denying his motion for competency determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claim that Florida's lethal injection statute violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine was time-barred; (2) the circuit court properly found Appellant's claim that the clemency proceeding did not comport with due process was time-barred; (3) the circuit court properly denied Appellant's claim that, as applied, Florida's death warrant selection process was unconstitutional; (4) Appellant's argument that his punishment was unconstitutional because he was incarcerated on death row for over three decades failed; and (5) the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for competency determination. View "Ferguson v. State" on Justia Law

This case was before the Supreme Court on appeal from a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction but remanded for a new penalty phase, holding, inter alia, (1) the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony from Appellant's wife, as the communications reflected in the testimony were privileged, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court should have granted Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of attempted sexual battery, but the error did not require a new trial; (3) the trial court's finding of the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator was error; and (4) based on the number of errors during the penalty phase, the errors were not harmless. View "Kaczmar v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a juvenile placed on juvenile probation, pleaded guilty to failing to follow an order of probation by violating curfew and failing to obey household rules. The circuit court then placed Petitioner in secure detention. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his sentence was illegal. The second district court of appeal denied Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus and certified conflict with the fifth district court of appeal's decision in M.P. v. State. The Supreme Court (1) approved the decision of the second district court of appeal denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and (2) disapproved the decision of the fifth district court of appeal in M.P. to the extent it was inconsistent with this opinion. View "J.M. v. Gargett" on Justia Law

In 2005, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for committing two sex offenses. Since 2009, Petitioner, an inmate in state custody, had filed six previous extraordinary writ petitions with the Supreme Court seeking various forms of relief related to his convictions or sentences. Each of Petitioner's extraordinary writ petitions filed with the Supreme Court was devoid of merit or inappropriate for consideration. Therefore, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any subsequent pro se filings in the Court regarding his convictions. After considering Petitioner's response, the Court concluded that it failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. In the meantime, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court alleging that his sentences were illegal. The Court further concluded that Petitioner's procedurally barred petition filed in this case was a frivolous proceeding brought before the Court by a state prisoner, and accordingly, the Clerk of Court was instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Petitioner regarding his convictions. View "Green v. Tucker" on Justia Law