Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

This action stemmed from an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit wherein plaintiff appealed the dismissal of claims under section 627.701(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and the denial of a motion to enforce execution of the judgment, and defendant appealed the denial of motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff had filed a claim with defendant, its property insurer, pursuant to an insurance policy but was dissatisfied with defendant's investigation and processing of its claim. Based on the facts and analysis, the court answered the first, third, fourth, and fifth questions certified by the Eleventh Circuit in the negative. In doing so, the court did not reach the second certified question. The court concluded that under Florida law: (1) first-party claims were actually statutory bad-faith claims that must be brought under section 624.155; (2) an insured could not bring a claim against an insurer for failure to comply with the language and type-size requirements established by section 627.701(4)(a); (3) an insurer's failure to comply with the language and type-size requirements established in section 627.701(4)(a) did not render a noncompliant hurricane deductible provision in an insurance policy void and unenforceable as the Legislature had not provided for this penalty; and (4) a contractual provision mandating payment of benefits upon "entry of a final judgment" did not waive the insurer's procedural right to post a bond and stay the execution of a money judgment pending resolution of appeal. View "QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Assoc., Inc." 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

This case was before the court for review of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Snipes v. Telli, which held that the Florida Constitution permitted Broward County to impose term limits on the office of the county commissioner. Because the court receded from its decision in Cook v. City of Jacksonville, the court approved the Fourth District's decision and held that Broward County's term limits did not violate Florida's Constitution. View "Telli v. Broward County, et al." 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

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