Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction and pro se barred Petitioner, an inmate in state custody, holding that Petitioner failed to show cause why he should not be barred and sanctioned.Petitioner was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Including the habeas corpus petition in the instant case, Petitioner filed thirty-one pro se petitions with the Supreme Court, and the Court never granted Petitioner the relief he sought in his filings. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner had abused this Court's limited judicial resources, concluded that Petitioner's habeas petition was a frivolous proceeding, and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar. View "Chestnut v. Dixon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court pro se barred Petitioner, an inmate in state custody, holding that Petitioner failed to show cause why he should not be barred and sanctioned.Petitioner was convicted of lewd and lascivious sexual battery of a victim twelve to fifteen years old lewd and lascivious exhibition using a computer and traveling to meet a minor for sex. Including the habeas corpus petition in the instant case, Petitioner filed nineteen pro se petitions with the Supreme Court, but the Court never granted Petitioner the relief he sought in his filings. As to the current action seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner had abused this Court's limited judicial resources, concluded that Petitioner's habeas petition was a frivolous proceeding, and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar. View "Levin v. State" on Justia Law

In this review of a decision of the Public Service Commission relating to rates charged by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the provision of electric service, the Supreme Court held that the Commission had not supplied a basis for meaningful judicial review of its conclusion that the settlement agreement provided a reasonable resolution of the issues, established reasonable rates, and was in the public interest.The settlement agreement at issue was between FPL and seven parties that intervened in the matter and permitted FPL to increase its base rates and service charges. After hearing arguments in favor of and against the settlement agreement the Commission concluded that the agreement "provides a reasonable resolution of all issues raised, establishes rates that are fair, just, and reasonable, and is in the public interest." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required because the Commission failed to perform its duty to explain its reasoning. View "Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the postconviction court summarily denying the claims in Michael Duane Zack, III's fourth successive postconviction motion and denied Zack's motion for stay of execution and request for oral argument, holding that Zack was not entitled to relief.Defendant was sentenced to death for the murder of Ravonne Smith and was scheduled for execution on October 3, 2023. In his successive postconviction motion Defendant claimed that his execution should be barred under the Eighth Amendment. The postconviction court summarily denied the claims as untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Zack's motion for stay of execution and request for oral argument, holding that the postconviction court did not err by summarily denying Defendant's claims as untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless. View "Zack v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court summarily denying Appellant's second successive motion for postconviction relief, which was filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the postconviction court did not err in denying Appellant's motion as untimely.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Appellant later filed his second successive motion for postconviction relief, claiming that newly discovered evidence rendered his death sentence unreliable. The postconviction court summarily denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish the timeliness of his successive postconviction petition. View "Damren v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Respondent's petition for a writ of mandamus and sanctioned Respondent, an inmate in state custody, by directing the clerk of court to reject any future pleadings or requests for relief submitted by Respondent related to his second-degree murder conviction unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar, holding that Respondent's petition was frivolous.Respondent was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to life imprisonment. After the court of appeal affirmed, Respondent began demonstrating "a pattern of vexatious filing of meritless pro se requests for relief," including the instant mandamus petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition and directed Respondent to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro se requests for relief. The Supreme Court then sanctioned Respondent, holding that Respondent had abused the Court's limited judicial resources. View "Calvin v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal concluding that Florida's extortion law, Fla. Stat. 836.05, requires the State to prove that the defendant made a threat "intentionally and without a lawful justification," holding that the lower court properly interpreted the statute.At issue was whether the State must prove that Defendant, who threatened to ruin the reputation of two fellow real estate brokers unless they paid him, made this threat with hatred for the complainants under section 836.05. While the Third District answered in the negative, the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that "maliciously" in section 836.05 required proof that Defendant acted with ill will or hatred. The Supreme Court approved the Third District's decision and disapproved the Fifth District's decision, holding that the trial court and court of appeal each decided correctly that the term "maliciously," as used in the statute, means "intentionally and without any lawful justification." View "Tomlinson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the circuit court denying Appellant's successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 and Appellant's request for additional public records filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.852(i), holding that there was no error.In 2012, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The circuit court later vacated Appellant's death sentence based on Hurst v. Stat, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2020), and ordered a new penalty phase. While Appellant's appeal in Calhoun II was pending, Appellant filed the successive postconviction motion at issue, raising a newly discovered evidence claim based on a purported jailhouse confession. On remand from Calhoun II, the circuit court denied Appellant's successive postconviction motion and his motion seeking additional public records. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denials of Appellant's successive postconviction motion and of his request for additional public errors, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion. View "Calhoun v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal concluding that the appellate court, exercising its authority to issue an interlocutory writ of certiorari, could not immediately review a trial court's ruling denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss a medical malpractice action brought them on the basis that Respondent's proposed expert did not meet the requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act, Fla. Stat. 766, holding that there was no error.Respondent sued Petitioners for medical malpractice and included within her presuit notices the affidavit of Dr. James DeStephens. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that DeStephens did not satisfy the statutory requisites. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, after which Petitioners filed a certiorari petition. The court of appeal dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that Respondent had not established irreparable harm. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding that it was Petitioners' failure to show that the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of the law, not their failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, that kept them from establishing their entitlement to relief. View "University of Fla. Bd. of Trustees v. Carmody" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of death imposed by the trial court following the Supreme Court's reversal of his original death sentence and remand for resentencing, holding that relative culpability review could not provide a basis for vacating Defendant's death sentence.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court overturned the death sentence on the ground that the trial court improperly relied on extrarecord facts and remanded for the limited purposes of resentencing and a new sentencing order. On remand, the trial court again sentenced Defendant to death. On appeal, Defendant argued that relative culpability review required that his sentence be reduced to life imprisonment because his equally culpable codefendant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the same judge. At issue was whether relative culpability review survived Lawrence v. State, 308 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2020). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court's relative culpability review was a corollary of its comparative proportionality review, which Lawrence held to be violative of the Florida Constitution; and (2) therefore, relative culpability review was rendered obsolete by the Lawrence decision and could not provide a basis for vacating Defendant's death sentence. View "Cruz v. State" on Justia Law