Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, due process violations, and a claim under Ring v. Arizona. The trial court denied postconviction relief. Defendant appealed the denial of relief and also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief, holding that Defendant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance to the prejudice of Defendant. Remanded for a new trial. View "Ibar v. State" on Justia Law

This matter involved the pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by Petitioner, an inmate in state custody. This petition was one of twenty-one extraordinary writ petitions or notices Petitioner had filed with the Supreme Court since 2008. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition and expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against him based on the number of his frivolous and meritless filings. The Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for his repeated misuse of the Court’s limited judicial resources and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner unless the filings were signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. View "Blaxton v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, a prisoner under sentence of death, filed a successive motion for postconviction relief, claiming that newly discovered evidence rendered his guilty plea invalid. The postconviction court summarily denied Appellant’s successive postconviction motion as time-barred on the grounds that the newly discovered evidence was information that could have been ascertained with the exercise of due diligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court’s summary denial was proper, as Appellant failed to timely file this motion and, further, Appellant could not demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the newly discovered evidence, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. View "Long v. State" on Justia Law

Respondent was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with a battery and aggravated battery and sentenced to life in prison. Respondent later filed a postconviction motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 raising four grounds for relief. As his first ground for relief, Respondent alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to hire an ophthalmologist expert to rebut the State’s claim that the victim suffered permanent eye damage as an element of aggravated battery. The State responded that the claim in ground one was insufficiently pled because it did not name the witness that should have been called and did not allege that the witness would have been available to testify at trial. The trial court struck the 3.850 motion. The district court reversed, concluding that Respondent was not required to provide the name of an ophthalmologist expert and that Respondent’s postconviction motion was facially sufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a 3.850 motion alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult or present an expert in a named field of expertise need not, in every case, name a specific expert and attest that the specific expert would have been available to testify at trial. View "State v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Defendant, an inmate in state custody, filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The petition was the thirty-first extraordinary writ petition or notice he had filed in approximately seven years. The Supreme Court denied the petition and directed Defendant to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se requests for relief and referred him to the Florida Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action. Defendant filed a response to the order to show cause and a motion seeking rehearing. The Supreme Court denied the motion and concluded that Defendant failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for his repeated misuse of the Court’s limited judicial resources, holding (1) neither Defendant’s response to the show cause order nor his motion for rehearing contained a justification for his repeated misuse of the Court’s limited judicial resources; and (2) because Defendant’s petitions were frivolous, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Defendant unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. View "Blaxton v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to death. Appellant later filed a successive motion for postconviction relief, alleging that newly discovered evidence rendered his guilty plea invalid. The postconviction court summarily denied Appellant’s successive postconviction motion as time-barred because the newly discovered evidence could have been ascertained earlier with the exercise of due diligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant failed to timely file this motion after he first discovered the information at issue, the postconviction court’s summary denial was not in error; and (2) even if Appellant’s successive postconviction motion was timely filed, Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to relief. View "Long v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted on charges of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder. Appellant entered written and oral guilty pleas to all charges. Appellant subsequently waived his right to a penalty phase jury and his right to be present in the penalty phase. Appellant was sentenced to death for the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Appellant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, among other claims. The circuit judge denied all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, thus denying Appellant’s claims that trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and Appellant’s challenges to the constitutionality of several of Florida’s death penalty provisions. View "Allred v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was scheduled for execution on January 7, 2016 for first degree murder. In 2014, Appellant filed an amended first successive postconviction motion. The circuit court denied the amended petition. Appellant moved for rehearing and subsequently filed a second successive motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court denied both the motion for rehearing and the second successive motion for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s orders denying relief, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Appellant’s newly discovered evidence claims; (2) properly denied Appellant’s claim that the State knowingly suppressed information in violation of Brady v. Maryland; and (3) properly denied Appellant’s claim that the Governor’s discretion to select condemned inmates for execution is unconstitutional. View "Bolin v. State" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) found County Court Judge John C. Murphy of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Murphy’s misconduct included threatening to commit violence against an assistance public defender, engaging in physical altercation with council, and resuming his docket while defendants were without council. The JQC recommended that Judge Murphy be disciplined as follows: a public reprimand, a 120-suspension, a $50,000 fine, mental health therapy, and Judicial Education Courses. The Supreme Court rejected the JQC’s recommendation and instead removed Judge Murphy from office, concluding that, through his misconduct, Judge Murphy surrendered his privilege to serve in the state’s court system. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge John C. Murphy" on Justia Law

Lucious Boyd was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Boyd filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. The circuit court denied relief. Boyd appealed the circuit court’s order denying postconviction relief and also petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. As to Boyd’s postconviction relief claims, the Supreme Court held (1) Boyd failed to show that he was entitled to a new trial on his claims of actual juror bias; and (2) Boyd was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The Court also denied Boyd’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "Boyd v. State" on Justia Law