Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed a notice of formal charges against Judge John P. Contini of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by sending an ex parte e-mail to the Broward Public Defenders Office, failing to seek a recusal or transfer when an appeal effectively froze his division, and making belittling remarks in open court about a pending matter. The JQC recommended that John Contini receive the sanction of a public reprimand plus a letter of apology, continued judicial mentoring, completion of a mental health program, and assessment of costs of these proceedings. The Supreme Court approved the JQC’s findings and recommendations of discipline, holding that the sanctions and conditions imposed were fitting and appropriate. View "In re Judge John Patrick Contini" on Justia Law

In 2005, John Sebo purchased a home. American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) provided homeowners insurance as of the date of the purchase. It later became clear that the house suffered from major design and construction defects when water began to intrude during rainstorms. Hurricane Wilma further damaged the residence. AHAC denied coverage for most of the claimed losses. Sebo sued AHAC seeking a declaration that the policy provided coverage for his damages. The jury found in favor of Sebo, and the trial court entered judgment against AHAC. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that coverage did not exist under Sebo’s all-risk policy when multiple perils combined to create a loss and at least one of the perils was excluded by the terms of the policy. The Supreme Court quashed the Second District’s opinion, holding that the plain language of the policy did not preclude recovery in this case. View "Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co." on Justia Law

In 1981, Appellant was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, among other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. The Supreme Court later granted Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Following a mistrial, Appellant was retried and again convicted and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court later granted Appellant’s third successive postconviction motion and vacated his sentences of death. Following a new penalty phase proceeding in 2013, the jury recommended that Appellant be sentenced to death for each of the three murders. The Surpeme Court vacated Appellant’s death sentences and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new penalty phase proceeding, holding that Appellant’s death sentences violate Ring v. Arizona and Hurst v. Florida because the jury that recommended Appellant’s death sentences did not find the facts necessary to sentence him to death. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer with possession and discharge of a firearm during commission of that crime and two counts of attempted armed robbery with possession of a firearm during commission of that crime. The trial court vacated its initial sentencing order and resentenced Defendant to two terms of thirty years for the attempted murders with mandatory minimum sentences of twenty years and two terms of fifteen years for the attempted armed robberies with mandatory minimum sentences of ten years. The court ordered that all sentences and mandatory minimums run consecutively. The First District Court of Appeal reversed Defendant’s sentences because he was not present at resentencing but otherwise found the sentences proper. The Supreme Court quashed the First District’s decision and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the First District erred in concluding that section 775.087 required Defendant’s sentences to be imposed consecutively, irrespective of whether Defendant fired, carried, or displayed a firearm; (2) the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on attempted manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder; and (3) the suggestive identification procedure employed in this case gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. View "Walton v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner is incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections upon his judgments of conviction and sentences for robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with firearm, and other offenses. In 2005, Petitioner began filing petitions in the Supreme Court challenging his incarceration. Since that time, Petitioner has filed eleven additional extraordinary writ petitions or notices. The Supreme Court has never granted Petitioner the relief sought in any of his filings. The instant petition, in which Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief, Petitioner attempted to collaterally attack the legality of his convictions and sentences based on a claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to fundamental errors. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus is a frivolous proceeding brought before the Court by a state prisoner and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or filings submitted by Petitioner unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. View "Grimsley v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the first-degree murder of a corrections officer at the Columbia Correctional Institution. The jury ultimately recommended a sentence of death, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but vacated his death sentence, holding (1) the record sufficiently supports Defendant’s conviction of first-degree murder; but (2) Florida’s capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Ring v. Arizona and Hurst v. Florida because the jury that recommended death did not find the facts necessary to sentence Defendant to death, and the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding. View "Franklin v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of robbery, and one count of carjacking. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for each murder and to life imprisonment for each of his other convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. This appeal concerned Appellant’s renewed motion for determination of intellectual disability and his amended motion to vacate judgment and sentences. The postconviction court ultimately denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in regards to Appellant’s amended motion to vacate judgment and sentences, the postconviction court did not err in denying Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or his claim that the cumulative effect of those errors deprived him of a fair trial; and (2) in regards to Appellant’s renewed motion for intellectual disability, the postconviction court did not err in finding that Appellant is not intellectually disabled. View "Wright v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Defendant was charged in an information with several counts related to child pornography. After Defendant was arrested on an arrest warrant issued in 2009 for possession of child pornography, he filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the applicable statute of limitations barred his prosecution. The State countered that Defendant was outside the state from 2008 until 2012 and, thus, the statute of limitations had not run because it was tolled the entire time pursuant to Fla. Stat. 775.15(5). The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that section 775.15 tolls the statute of limitations when the defendant is continuously absent from the state. Defendant then entered a plea of no contest to the charges and was adjudicated guilty on all counts. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court approved the decision and disapproved the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Netherly v. State and State v. Perez to the extent they hold that, under section 775.15, the State must prove that the State conducted a diligent search for the defendant while he was continuously absent from the state or that the defendant’s absence from the state hindered the prosecution in order to toll the statute of limitations. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count each of armed robbery, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The trial court imposed two sentences of death for the murder convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s judgments of conviction but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the court impose life sentences for each of Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, holding (1) competent, substantial evidence supported the convictions; and (2) because the murders in this case were not among the most aggravated and least mitigated, the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment. View "Phillips v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. The jury recommended death sentences for the murder convictions, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated Defendant’s death sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his confession and the corresponding video recording of it; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding a false confession expert from testifying that Defendant’s statement to law enforcement was coerced; (3) the trial court did not err by advising the jury that the ultimate decision to impose the death penalty rested with the court; (4) the evidence was sufficient to support the first-degree murder convictions; but (5) the term-of-years sentences imposed against Defendant’s codefendants precluded Defendant’s death sentences. View "McCloud v. State" on Justia Law