Anthony K. Black

In this Anders appeal, Luis Reyes challenged his judgments and sentences after pleading no contest to two counts of sexual battery, burglary with a battery, and home invasion robbery. The court affirmed all convictions and the original sentences of thirty years in prison followed by ten years of probation on each count to run concurrently. After Reyes filed his notice of appeal, the trial court granted a motion to reconsider and reduced the prison terms to twenty-five years with no probation, but the appellate court held these modifications void. The core reasoning was that the notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and appellate rules, preventing any ruling on the motion without relinquishment of jurisdiction by the appellate court. The original sentences therefore remain in effect, with the defendant free to file a timely postconviction motion after mandate issues.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gulledge v. Gulledge, the former husband appealed the final judgment dissolving his thirty-year marriage, specifically challenging the trial court's failure to set a deadline for refinancing or sale of the marital home (of which he was awarded half the equity), its denial of alimony despite his demonstrated need and the wife's higher income, and its failure to address or reserve jurisdiction over his request for attorney's fees. The court held that these omissions constituted errors requiring reversal and remand. It reasoned that precedent requires a reasonable deadline for sale or refinancing of the marital residence, that a long-term marriage creates a presumption favoring at least nominal permanent alimony when need is shown and the statutory factors are considered, and that a trial court must rule on or reserve jurisdiction for pleaded requests for attorney's fees.

family lawproperty

In this case, Kenneth Ingraham appealed his sentence following a prior reversal and remand for resentencing by this court. The appellate court affirmed the corrected sentence but noted discrepancies between the trial court's oral pronouncement and the written sentence, specifically regarding prison credit and the amount of court costs. Because Ingraham had not preserved these issues by objecting or filing a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), the court affirmed the sentence without prejudice to his ability to seek correction via a rule 3.800(a) motion.

criminal lawprocedure

In King v. King, the former wife appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for contempt and enforcement of the 2007 marital settlement agreement incorporated in the divorce judgment, which required the former husband to make interest payments on an equitable distribution award until paid or the marital home sold. The trial court held it lacked jurisdiction after the home sale and limited the former wife to a separate civil contract action. The appellate court reversed, concluding the final judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction to enforce all provisions other than the dissolution itself and that the circuit court retained inherent authority to enforce the dissolution judgment in the same proceeding with the same case number. The matter was remanded for the trial court to consider the enforcement motion on its merits.

family lawprocedure

Joseph McClough challenged his sentence for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, arguing that it exceeded the twenty-year cap with a ten-year minimum mandatory that the State and trial court had agreed to in exchange for his guilty plea. He claimed his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the sentence or file a motion to withdraw the plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the sentencing error was not preserved for direct review and that ineffective assistance of counsel was not manifest on the face of the record because a tactical explanation for counsel's inaction was conceivable. The court noted that the affirmance was without prejudice to McClough filing a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Aaron Daniels, who was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting and killing a bystander during an altercation. Daniels appealed, claiming the trial court committed fundamental error by giving the 2008 version of the manslaughter by act jury instruction, which he argued required proof of intent to kill contrary to law. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the instruction as given did not require the jury to find an intent to kill the victim but only an intent to commit an act that caused death. The reasoning centered on the differences between the instruction in this case and the one found erroneous in State v. Montgomery, noting that the 2008 amendment included clarifying language that cured the defect.

criminal lawprocedure

Jack Twardokus appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which the lower court had dismissed as untimely based on a 2005 appellate mandate. The appeals court reversed, determining that the two-year filing deadline instead ran from the February 22, 2008 mandate issued after Twardokus's granted belated appeal in the relevant cases stemming from his 2004 no-contest pleas and trial. Because the motion was filed on February 5, 2009, it was timely, and the court remanded the case for the postconviction court to address the six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

Michael Allen Crane pleaded no contest to multiple charges across three criminal cases involving fraud, theft, and drug possession. Before sentencing, he moved to withdraw his pleas under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f), claiming they were involuntary because his attorney failed to advise him of a potential defense to the dealing in stolen property charges. The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reversed that denial, holding that counsel's alleged mistaken advice established a sufficient basis for good cause to withdraw the plea and that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to develop the facts before ruling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jonathan Caldwell's appeal of a probation revocation order stemming from a conviction for lewd and lascivious battery upon an elderly or disabled adult. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Caldwell violated his probation. However, it held that the trial court erred by not allowing any argument or presentation of mitigating evidence on sentencing, requiring remand for a limited sentencing hearing. The court also remanded to correct a scrivener's error in the revocation order, which incorrectly stated that Caldwell had admitted the violation when the record showed a contested hearing and finding of willful violation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Janice M. Risch's appeal of a trial court's denial of her emergency motion for rehearing or relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. The underlying dispute appears to involve Bank of America as the plaintiff or holder of an interest, though the opinion focuses on the post-judgment motion alleging misrepresentation. The appellate court reversed the denial and remanded the matter, holding that an evidentiary hearing was required because Risch's motion raised colorable claims under rule 1.540(b)(3) supported by an affidavit and records. The decision relies on precedents requiring formal evidentiary hearings and possible discovery when such allegations are made, rather than resolving credibility without evidence. No hearing with evidence had occurred at the trial level despite the motion's assertions.

procedure

The case involved BMR Funding appealing a trial court's award of attorneys' fees to DDR Corporation and Carol J. Dunn following foreclosure and deficiency judgment proceedings related to a mortgage and loan documents. The appellate court reversed the fee award, holding that DDR and Dunn were not entitled to fees because they failed to include a claim for attorneys' fees in their pleadings as required by Florida law. The court reasoned that under precedents like Stockman v. Downs and Green v. Sun Harbor Homeowners’ Ass’n, such claims must be pleaded in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim to provide notice to the opposing party, and the defendants' late notice of intent did not meet this requirement or qualify for any exception.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Tracey Construction sued Daniel Getman for breach of contract, or alternatively quantum meruit and lien foreclosure. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and awarded damages before Getman had answered the complaint, relying on his failure to file opposing affidavits. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that a plaintiff moving for summary judgment before an answer is filed bears the heavy burden of showing that no answer the defendant might properly serve could raise a genuine issue of material fact, and that the trial court had applied an incorrect standard.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this wrongful death case, Loida Coral sued Garrard Carpentry, Inc. and Garrard Crane Service, Inc. after her husband, a crane mechanic, was fatally injured while testing a crane he had repaired, alleging liability related to the crane's ownership and operation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on affirmative defenses including workers’ compensation immunity and a waiver in the employment agreement. The appellate court reversed, finding that the complaint was poorly pleaded making it unclear if all factual issues were resolved, and that disputed facts existed regarding the companies' relationships to the decedent and their entitlement to immunity under workers’ compensation laws or the borrowed servant doctrine.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves George Mann's appeal of his conviction and sentence for robbery with a weapon. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence without further comment. However, it remanded the matter to the trial court to correct a scrivener’s error on the face of the written judgment, which erroneously indicated a conviction for robbery with a firearm rather than robbery with a weapon. The court observed that the record clearly reflects the actual conviction and cited prior decisions as authority for remanding to fix such clerical mistakes.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a law firm's motion to compel arbitration of a client's legal malpractice claim arising from a real estate closing, based on an arbitration clause in the parties' legal services contract. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that enforcement of the clause would violate Florida public policy even though the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. The appellate court reversed, holding that no Florida constitutional provision, statute, or case law establishes that arbitration clauses requiring resolution of legal malpractice disputes are against public policy. The court further reasoned that arbitration agreements are generally favored under Florida law and that the client's business sophistication and review of the contract supported enforcement.

proceduretorts & liability

L.A.P. was convicted under section 384.24(2), Florida Statutes, which criminalizes sexual intercourse by an HIV-positive person without disclosing their status. She had engaged in oral sex and digital penetration without informing her partner and challenged the conviction on the ground that those acts did not constitute sexual intercourse. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reversed the conviction, ruling that the statute's plain language limits the offense to penile-vaginal penetration. The court reached this conclusion by applying the ordinary meaning of the term as established in case law and other Florida statutes, without expanding the statute beyond its unambiguous text.

criminal law

Jethro Senat appealed a trial court order revoking his probation after findings that he left his county of residence without permission and committed the new offense of corruption by threat against a public servant. The appellate court affirmed the revocation without comment but remanded the case to correct a scrivener's error in the written order, which had listed violations of different probation conditions than those announced orally at the hearing. The court explained that discrepancies between oral pronouncements and written orders must be fixed to avoid future confusion, citing prior precedent on the issue.

criminal lawprocedure

In Pierre-Charles v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions and life sentences for two counts of first-degree murder after a jury trial in which the State presented no physical evidence and relied on witness testimony, including statements from Angel Brooks and the defendant's brother Andre. The appellate court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by admitting Andre's out-of-court head nod in a videotaped conversation with his father, which responded affirmatively to the question of whether the defendant committed the murders. The court reasoned that the head nod was hearsay in the form of a nonverbal assertion offered for its truth rather than solely to impeach Andre's credibility, and the error was not harmless because the jury's questions during deliberations focused on that testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

In Stieh v. State, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery after stabbing the victim during a physical confrontation that arose when the victim and his girlfriend returned to the defendant's hotel room searching for missing wallets following a consensual sexual encounter. The defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at trial, arguing he had acted in self-defense or defense of another, but the motions were denied and he was convicted. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for discharge, concluding that the defendant presented a prima facie case of self-defense, including a possible statutory presumption applicable when force is used against someone unlawfully entering a dwelling, and the State failed to rebut it beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that conflicts in witness testimony were minor and did not foreclose the defendant's theory of innocence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ernest Bennett's lawsuit under section 194.171, Florida Statutes, challenging the Pasco County property appraiser's denial of a homestead tax exemption for the 2007 tax year after the Value Adjustment Board upheld the denial. Bennett filed his complaint in August 2008, which the property appraiser moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the sixty-day filing deadline and for untimely service. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice against the property appraiser based on the timeliness issue. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal as to the VAB chairman but reversed as to the property appraiser, holding that the appraiser failed to meet its burden of proving untimeliness because no competent evidence was presented at the hearing and the file stamp created only a rebuttable presumption that could be overcome by evidence of clerk error.

taxespropertyprocedure