Robert T. Benton 2

The case involved Basilio Corrales appealing his conviction for failing to appear in court under section 843.15(1)(a), Florida Statutes, after missing a scheduled hearing on drug charges. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the state failed to prove willfulness because there was no evidence that Corrales received personal notice of the hearing date, only that his attorney was notified. The reasoning emphasized that notice to counsel alone is insufficient to establish criminal liability for failure to appear without additional evidence of the defendant's knowledge or intent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between law firms over the division of attorney's fees from a claims bill, where Block filed an interpleader action and Searcy Denney sought to compel arbitration under an employment agreement. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration but on the same day the judge entered an order of recusal. The appellate court vacated the arbitration order, reasoning that any order entered simultaneously with a recusal order is void, and since the timing was unclear, they were deemed simultaneous. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the successor judge.

procedure

The case concerned Glenn Tourelle's appeal of a Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission order affirming an appeals referee's finding that he had been overpaid $787 in unemployment benefits. After losing his job, Tourelle received benefits while working part-time, but his reported earnings did not match his employer's payroll records for certain weeks in 2010, leading the Agency for Workforce Innovation to determine an overpayment. The court affirmed the decision, holding that Tourelle bore the burden of proving eligibility for benefits by accurately reporting earnings on a Sunday-to-Saturday weekly basis as required by statute and agency rule, and that his difficulty aligning the employer's bi-weekly pay periods with those reporting requirements did not excuse his failure to meet that burden or establish entitlement to the benefits received.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Miller v. State, the defendant appealed an order revoking his probation and imposing a five-year prison sentence in circuit court case No. 02-306CFA after he was found to have committed a new drug offense. The court noted that a prior appeal in a related case (No. 02-597CFA) had succeeded on the ground that the revocation relied solely on hearsay evidence, leading to reinstatement of probation in that case, but no timely appeal had been filed in the present case. By the time a belated appeal was allowed and briefed, Miller had completed his sentence and been released from custody. The court therefore dismissed the appeal as moot, following precedent that requires dismissal when the appellant has fully served the sentence under review.

criminal lawprocedure

In Crain v. State, the appellant was convicted of a third-degree felony under Florida Statute section 322.34(5) for driving while his license was revoked as a habitual traffic offender, even though he had never held any driver's license. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the felony conviction, concluding that the statute requires proof that the defendant's driver's license had been revoked and does not apply to persons who never obtained a license. The court reasoned from the statutory definitions in chapter 322 that "driver's license" refers to an authorizing certificate and "revocation" refers to termination of a licensee's privilege, while driving without a valid license is separately prohibited as a misdemeanor under section 322.03(1). The case was remanded for entry of judgment on the lesser-included misdemeanor offense.

criminal law

The case involves a dispute between Unifirst Corporation and the City of Jacksonville Tax Collector's Office regarding an award of attorney's fees and costs following earlier appellate proceedings. The court granted in part the motion for review of the fees award, directing the circuit court to reduce the amount assessed against attorney Kevin S. Sanders by excluding any fees attributable to litigation outside the specific proceedings in this court that led to the denial of rehearing. It further held that no fees could be awarded for proceedings in the Florida Supreme Court absent a motion requesting such fees there. The court denied the motion for rehearing, clarification, and rehearing en banc. The reasoning rests on established precedents requiring timely motions for fees in each court and limiting awards to relevant appellate work.

proceduretaxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups, students, and parents alleging that Florida's public school system fails to meet the state constitution's requirement under Article IX, section 1(a) to make adequate provision for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools, citing issues like insufficient funding and ineffective policies. Legislative and education officials petitioned for a writ of prohibition after the trial court denied their motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims raised nonjusticiable political questions as in prior precedent. The District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that circuit courts possess general jurisdiction to hear declaratory claims and that post-1998 constitutional amendments may supply judicially manageable standards, while certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves a lawsuit by nonprofit organizations, students, and parents alleging that Florida's public education system violates Article IX, section 1(a) of the state constitution by failing to provide a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools, citing issues like insufficient funding, low graduation rates, and inadequate accountability policies. Legislative leaders and education officials petitioned for a writ of prohibition after the trial court denied their motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims presented nonjusticiable political questions under prior precedent like Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles. The District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that circuit courts have general jurisdiction over declaratory judgment claims and that the amended constitutional standards may render the adequacy issue justiciable, though it certified the question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that denial of a motion to dismiss does not typically warrant prohibition and that any discovery would be supervised by the trial judge.

civil rightsprocedure

In Goings v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction for sexual battery by familial or custodial authority under section 794.011(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), contending that the statute of limitations barred further prosecution because the arrest warrant issued in 1996 was not executed until 2009. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction, ruling that execution of the warrant did not involve unreasonable delay. The court reasoned that prosecution commenced timely upon filing the information in 1996, and under section 775.15(5), the defendant's continuous absence from Florida satisfied the statutory requirement without the need to prove ongoing diligent search efforts after his departure.

criminal lawprocedure

Ronald Ray Bevans appealed the denial of his postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 after convictions for kidnapping and sexual battery on a victim under twelve. The trial court had rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but the appellate court found that trial counsel gave affirmative misadvice by stating a life sentence would allow parole eligibility after twenty-five years, when the applicable statute imposed life without parole. The court affirmed the denial on all other grounds but reversed in part, remanding for a supplemental evidentiary hearing limited to whether Bevans relied on the misadvice in rejecting a thirty-year plea offer and proceeding to trial. Under the Strickland standard, the opinion held that such misadvice amounts to deficient performance, requiring proof of prejudice through evidence of reliance on the incorrect advice.

criminal lawprocedure

Leroy Jones, then sixteen years old, was charged with robbery while armed with a firearm, entered a guilty plea, and later sought to withdraw the plea before sentencing. His appointed counsel informed the trial court of a potential conflict that prevented him from assisting with the motion and requested appointment of independent counsel, but the court instead directed Jones to prepare and file a pro se motion on his own. After considering the handwritten motion, which disclaimed any deficiency in counsel's representation, the trial court denied withdrawal of the plea and imposed a seventeen-year sentence. The appellate court reversed the conviction, ruling that consideration of a presentencing motion to withdraw a plea is a critical stage of the proceedings at which an indigent defendant is entitled to conflict-free counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Paul Milner, who was initially denied unemployment benefits after being fired for alleged misconduct and then had his appeal dismissed for missing a scheduled telephone hearing. Milner requested reopening within the allowed time, explaining he was out of town seeking work and only learned of the missed hearing date after calling the agency, but the appeals referee and Unemployment Appeals Commission found he lacked good cause. The court reversed, holding that good cause existed under Florida Administrative Code Rule 60BB-5.017(3) because Milner's absence was not deliberate, he was job hunting, and he acted promptly upon learning of the hearing, consistent with precedents like Coon Clothing and Rouse where short absences justified reopening. The court remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the misconduct claim. The decision emphasized that good cause means an additional hearing is reasonably necessary in the interest of justice.

labor & employment

The case concerned a dispute over the distribution of property that Ann Dunn Aldrich acquired after executing her will, specifically an inheritance from her sister who predeceased her. The will listed specific assets to pass to the sister or, if she died first, to the brother, but contained no residuary clause or other provisions for additional property. The brother, as personal representative, argued that the after-acquired property should pass to him under the will pursuant to section 732.6005(2), while the nieces contended it passed by partial intestacy. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the brother, holding that absent a residuary clause the will did not dispose of all property and the disputed assets therefore passed to heirs under sections 732.101-.111. The court reasoned that section 732.6005(2) applies only to property addressed by the will's terms and does not override the requirement of a valid disposition for after-acquired assets.

family lawproperty

Gregory Doctor appealed his convictions and sentences on fourteen felony counts, arguing that the trial court should have granted his motion for discharge under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191 because the state filed its first formal charges more than 175 days after his arrest, and that the statute of limitations had run on all counts. The court reversed the convictions and remanded with directions that he be discharged. The opinion explains that the speedy trial period begins upon arrest and continues to run even if the state takes no action, and that filing charges after the 175-day period expires deprives the state of the benefit of the recapture provision in Rule 3.191(p)(3). The state conceded that the statute of limitations barred at least twelve of the fourteen counts. The court held that both the speedy trial violation and the limitations bar required discharge.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation dispute in which an injured employee was awarded temporary partial disability benefits by the judge of compensation claims, but was denied penalties and interest on late payments. The employer and carrier appealed the benefits award, while the claimant cross-appealed the denial of penalties and interest. The court affirmed the award of benefits but reversed the denial of penalties and interest, remanding for their award. It reasoned that under applicable administrative rules, the claims-handling entity must first send DWC-19 earnings report forms to the employee before any obligation to submit them arises, and the employer failed to prove the forms had been provided.

labor & employment

The case involved an appeal by Max and Alicia Sheppard from a trial court order awarding costs and attorneys' fees to M & R Plumbing, Inc., following a jury trial in a dispute over installation of a water treatment system on the Sheppards' property. M & R had sued for breach of an alleged verbal contract, foreclosure of a construction lien under Florida's Construction Lien Law, and alternatively for recovery on a quantum meruit basis. The jury found no contract existed but awarded M & R $13,155 on the quantum meruit claim, and the trial court awarded M & R attorneys' fees under section 713.29 as the prevailing party on the lien claim. The appellate court affirmed the costs award but reversed the attorneys' fees, holding that a construction lien requires proof of a valid contract (express or implied in fact), which the jury's verdict negated, so section 713.29 did not authorize fees; the court also rejected the Sheppards' claim for fees on the same basis.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Craigside, LLC sued GDC View, LLC after paying $1,125,000 under a 2004 preconstruction contract for a Walton County condominium, claiming GDC breached by failing to complete the unit by the May 1, 2007 deadline and by selling it to a third party without returning the funds with interest. The trial court found GDC had not breached and entered judgment for GDC. On appeal, the court reversed in part, holding that Craigside's April 16, 2007 letter refusing to close constituted an anticipatory repudiation that excused GDC from further performance and allowed it to retain the $225,000 deposit as liquidated damages after selling the unit, but directed the trial court to award Craigside statutory interest on the $900,000 portion from the date of repudiation until its repayment in 2008; the judgment was otherwise affirmed based on competent substantial evidence supporting the findings and the legal effect of the repudiation under contract principles.

property

The case concerned a teachers' union's appeal of a Public Employees Relations Commission order dismissing an unfair labor practice charge against a school board that had declared a financial urgency under section 447.4095 to modify an existing collective bargaining agreement providing for salary step increases. The court reversed the dismissal in part and remanded, holding that PERC must determine whether a genuine financial urgency actually existed before allowing unilateral changes to the agreement. The core reasoning was that a public employer's mere declaration cannot alone abrogate a collective bargaining agreement, as this would violate public employees' constitutional right to bargain collectively under Article I, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, and a neutral forum subject to judicial review is required to resolve disputes over the claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Dewolfe v. State, Michele DeWolfe was convicted of felony petit theft for stealing two air conditioners from a house she had recently vacated, based in part on a neighbor's eyewitness testimony. The defense sought to introduce hearsay testimony from two witnesses recounting confessions by Bruce Ahlgren, who had since died, that he and an accomplice had committed the theft, relying on the declaration-against-penal-interest exception under Florida Statute section 90.804(2)(c). The trial court excluded the statements, finding insufficient corroborating circumstances to establish their trustworthiness. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statements met the exception's requirements because they were consistent with other evidence about the crime and the declarant's pattern of similar conduct, and that questions of credibility were for the jury rather than the judge to resolve. The case was remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by A.T.N. from an order adjudicating her child E.B. as dependent based on a stipulation with the Florida Department of Children and Family Services. The court reversed the order because a general magistrate, rather than a circuit judge, presided over the adjudicatory hearing in violation of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.257(h) and section 39.507, Florida Statutes, and because the decision relied solely on hearsay evidence without any witnesses or proper proof presented by the Department. The core reasoning was that dependency adjudications must be conducted by a judge applying civil evidence rules, the Department failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and there was no valid order of referral to the magistrate.

family lawprocedure