Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that Fla. Stat. 120.68(3), which entitles a party to a presumptive stay upon the appeal of an agency decision that "has the effect of suspending or revoking a license," does not apply to an agency decision to administratively withdraw an incomplete renewal license application.When Ybor Medical Injury and Accident Clinic, Inc. (the clinic), applied to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to renew its expiring license the AHCA invited the clinic to supplement its application, which was incomplete. After the clinic failed to do so, AHCA administratively withdrew the incomplete renewal license application from further consideration. The AHCA appealed and sought a presumptive stay under section 120.68(3). The court of appeals granted the presumptive stay. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that the appeal of an agency’s withdrawal decision does not trigger the statute’s presumptive stay provision. View "Agency for Health Care Administration v. Ybor Medical Injury & Accident Clinic, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the court of appeals to reinstate his appeal of a circuit court order denying him postconviction relief, holding that Petitioner did all that the text of the inmate filing rule required.Petitioner, an inmate convicted of second-degree murder, filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. The circuit court denied the petition. Petitioner appealed, but the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely. Petitioner then filed for relief seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the court of appeals to reinstate his appeal. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the court of appeals erred in not accepting Petitioner's notice of appeal as timely filed without a prison date stamp because the prison mail log produced by Petitioner indicated the notice was timely turned over to prison officials for mailing under Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(a)(2). View "Wade v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's two first-degree murder convictions and two corresponding sentences of death, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree murder with a firearm. The jury rendered unanimous verdicts recommending a penalty of death on both murder counts, determining that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances. In this direct appeal, Defendant raised fifteen claims, including several challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings and to Florida's death penalty scheme. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and his sentences of death, holding that Defendant failed to establish prejudicial error in any respect. View "Joseph v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentences of death imposed in connection with his conviction for two counts of first-degree murder, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After he was originally convicted and sentenced Defendant received a new penalty phase in light of Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Thereafter, Defendant was resentenced to death for both murders. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentences of death, holding (1) Defendant's jury unanimously found that each of five aggravating factors was proven beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) there was no error in allowing the State to amend its notice of aggravating factors; (3) the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of victim impact evidence; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims of error. View "McKenzie v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court summarily denying Appellant's sixth successive motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the trial court did not err in summarily denying Appellant's postconviction motion.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and burglary. The trial judge sentenced Appellant to death. In his sixth successive postconviction motion Appellant asserted two claims, including a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The trial court rejected both claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in summarily denying Appellant's sixth postconviction motion. View "Booker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim failed because he received adequate consideration in exchange for the challenged fee when he took advantage of the privilege of using his credit card to pay the penalty.Plaintiff filed a putative class action arguing that a convenience fee that Plaintiff paid in connection with a penalty he paid with his credit card to the City of North Miami Beach. Plaintiff argued that the convenience fee was statutorily prohibited and that American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (ATS), with whom the City had contracted to issue and mail citations and process violators' payments of the civil penalties imposed, was unjustly enriched by retaining the fee. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals certified a question to the Supreme Court, which answered that Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim failed because he had not alleged a benefit conferred and accepted which would be unjust for ATS to retain. View "Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and his sentence of death, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant entered a no contest plea to first-degree murder, attempted murder of a correctional officer with a deadly weapon, and other crimes. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not employing all of the mitigation-investigation procedures required in Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2001), because Muhammad's investigative procedures did not apply; (2) Defendant's second assignment of error was without merit; and (3) Defendant voluntarily and knowingly entered his no contest plea. View "Bell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a deed covenant requiring the arbitration of any dispute arising from a construction defect runs with the land such that it is binding upon a subsequent purchaser of the real estate who was not a party to the deed.The home in this case was constructed and sold by U.S. Home Corp. to the original purchasers. The original deed contained an arbitration provision and several covenants, conditions and restrictions concerning the home that bound both the original purchasers and subsequent purchasers. The original purchasers later sold the home to Plaintiffs, who brought suit against U.S. Home pursuant to Fla. Stat. 553.84. U.S. Home filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration, which the circuit court granted. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that it was a covenant running with the land. The Supreme Court approved the decision below, holding that Plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration provision. View "Hayslip v. U.S. Home Corp." on Justia Law

In this dispute over the power to make changes to a county sheriff's budget the Supreme Court held that the Sheriff of Alachua County is not permitted under Florida Statutes chapters 30 and 129 to make object-level transfers without the approval of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners.At issue was the Sheriff's authority to transfer money within the Sheriff's budget at a level of detail called the "object" level under chapters 30 and 129. The County brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Sheriff had no authority to move approximately $840,000 between two objects in the budget without approval from the County. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the Sheriff had the authority to make transfers at the object level without County approval. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that when seeking to transfer money between objects, the Sheriff must follow the budgetary amendment process set forth in chapter 129 and that the Sheriff failed to do so in this case. View "Alachua County v. Watson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court summarily denying Appellant's successive motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. In a seven-to-five vote recommendation the jury sentenced Appellant to death, and the death sentence became final in 1989. In his postconviction motion, Appellant argued that he was entitled to retroactive application of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), which receded from Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) except as to the requirement that a jury must unanimously find the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Poole did not retroactively apply to Appellant. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law