Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court summarily denying Appellant's third successive motion for postconviction relief, filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the postconviction court properly denied relief.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary with assault or battery, and retaliation against a witness. The trial judge sentenced Appellant to death after a second penalty phase. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. In his third successive postconviction motion, Appellant alleged newly discovered evidence of both Brady violations and violations under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The circuit court summarily denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if Appellant's claims were not procedurally barred, Appellant failed to demonstrate that the alleged newly discovered evidence would likely produce an acquittal on retrial. View "Bogle v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved the stipulation entered into by Judge Richard Howard of the Fifth Judicial Circuit and the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) that Judge Howard should be publicly reprimanded because he acted in appropriately.Judge Howard attempted to dissuade a judicial candidate from running against an incumbent judge and attempted to persuade the candidate either to run against a different incumbent judge or to forgo the campaign altogether. The JQC concluded that Judge Howard's conduct violated Canon 7A(1)(b). Judge Howard conceded that his conduct was improper. The Supreme Court approved the stipulation entered by the parties but declined to endorse the conclusion that judge Haward's conduct involved endorsing and opposing candidates for office in violation of Canon 7A(1)(b). View "Inquiry Concerning Judge Richard Howard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a defendant who does not comply with the Florida rule of appellate procedure requiring a criminal defendant to file a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial court before appealing an involuntary plea must seek any available relief through collateral review.Defendant pleaded no contest to certain charges. After Defendant was sentenced his counsel filed a notice of appeal. Despite the preservation requirement of Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c), Defendant did not first file a motion to withdraw his plea. On appeal, the Fourth District concluded that the trial court had committed fundamental error by failing to holding a hearing on Defendant's competency and that, under the circumstances, it was not necessary for Defendant first to file a motion to withdraw plea. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that there is no fundamental-error exception to the preservation requirement of Rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c). View "State v. Dortch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss postconviction counsel and proceedings, filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the circuit court properly accepted Defendant's waiver.Defendant was sentenced to death of the murders of his infant son and the child's mother. Eight years later, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) was appointed to represent Defendant in postconviction proceedings. Defendant filed a pro se motion to monitor and remove CCRC counsel and to waive postconviction counsel and proceedings. The court found that Defendant's waiver of postconviction counsel and proceedings was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and orally accepted Defendant's waiver. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not err in concluding that Defendant was competent to waive postconviction counsel and proceedings. View "Wall v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the postconviction court summarily denying Appellant's second successive motion to vacate his judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death, holding that the postconviction court did not err.On appeal, Appellant argued that the postconviction court's failure to hold a case management hearing pursuant to Huff v. State, 622 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1993), was erroneous and that the court erred in denying relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claim of juror misconduct was not procedurally barred; and (2) summary denial was proper because Appellant's allegations of juror dishonesty and actual bias were legally insufficient to state a claim. View "Boyd v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved a stipulation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission and Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Scott Cupp agreeing to the discipline of a public reprimand, holding that a public reprimand was appropriate.In the stipulation, Judge Cupp admitted to violating Canons of Judicial Conduct 1, 2B, and 7B(1)(b) and damaged the integrity of the judiciary by creating the appliance that he was interceding in a judicial election. Judge Cupp also admitted to violating Canon 7 and Fla. Stat. Chapter 106 during his 2020 reelection campaign and that his conduct damaged the public's perception of the judiciary. The Supreme Court approved the stipulation and ordered Judge Cupp to appear before the Supreme Court for the administration of a public reprimand. View "In re Judge Scott Cupp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's second and third amended motions to vacate judgment and sentence, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and one count of armed robbery. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder. During voir dire, one potential juror, juror Smith, remained silent when asked about prior arrests when, in actuality, the juror had been adjudicated delinquent for sexual battery as a minor. In his postconviction motions, Defendant alleged that juror Smith's misconduct provided a basis for postconviction relief. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's factual allegations, taken as true, would not demonstrate error on the part of trial counsel. View "Martin v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence of death imposed on Defendant after a new penalty phase ordered by the Supreme Court, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court remanded for a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), after, after a new penalty phase, the jury returned a unanimous verdict recommending that Defendant be sentenced to death. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show error, much less prejudicial error. View "Deviney v. State" on Justia Law

In this certified conflict case, the Supreme Court held that a final judgment that modifies a preexisting parenting plan does not need to give a parent "concrete steps" to restore lost time-sharing and return to the premodification status quo.The parties in this case, the unmarried parents of a minor child, entered into a paternity agreement and parenting plan that was incorporated in a final judgment. Father later filed a petition to modify the parties' original parenting plan. The court entered a final judgment modifying the parenting plan. Mother appealed, arguing that the lower court's order was legally flawed because it lacked "concrete steps" that Mother could work toward to regain her lost timesharing. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court approved the decision below, holding that Mother's arguments in favor of a concrete steps requirement failed. View "C.N. v. I.G.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court struck a proposed amendment that would add a new section to Fla. Const. art. X, 33, holding that the language in the ballot summary indicating that the proposed qualifiedly "[p]ermits" the use and distribution of recreational marijuana was affirmatively misleading.The Attorney General petitioned the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion regarding the validity of an initiative petition titled "Adult Use of Marijuana." At issue was whether the proposed amendment complied with the single-subject requirement of Fla. Const. art. XI, 3 and whether the ballot title and summary complied with the clarity requirements of Fla. Stat. 101.161(1). The Supreme Court struck the proposed amendment, holding that the initiative petition was clearly and conclusively defective on the ground that the ballot summary failed to comply with Fla. Stat. 101.161. View "Advisory Opinion to Attorney General Re: Adult Use of Marijuana" on Justia Law