The case involved Kellie Williams appealing her judgment and sentence for possession of clonazepam under Florida law. Williams argued that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on her prescription defense, which she based on evidence that she was temporarily holding the medication for the prescription holder who had memory problems related to bipolar disorder. The appellate court agreed, citing prior rulings that extended the defense under section 893.13(6)(a) to individuals authorized by the prescription holder to possess the controlled substance on their behalf. Because the trial court had not instructed the jury on this defense, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
The case involves UCF student Paul Couchman appealing disciplinary sanctions imposed by the university, raising the question of whether UCF qualifies as an agency under Florida’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for purposes of direct appellate review in the district court. The court held that UCF is not subject to the APA when acting pursuant to rules adopted by its Board of Trustees under authority derived from the state constitution, and therefore transferred the case to circuit court for certiorari review. The reasoning centered on the 2002 amendment to Article IX of the Florida Constitution, which established the Board of Governors and local boards of trustees with constitutional powers over the state university system, distinguishing such actions from those taken solely under legislative statutory authority. As a result, the APA’s definition of “agency” and its judicial review provisions do not apply, leaving certiorari in the circuit court as the proper avenue for challenging the quasi-judicial disciplinary decision.
The case involved a mother appealing an order from a child dependency proceeding in which her minor child was adjudicated dependent, sole parental responsibility was awarded to the father, and the court's jurisdiction was terminated. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order on the grounds that the mother's due process rights were violated during the proceedings. After the mother entered a consent plea to the dependency petition based on a proposed case plan with a goal of reunification—as recited in the plea form and confirmed during the court's colloquy—the trial court instead awarded custody to the father following a positive drug test, without prior notice that this disposition was under consideration or an opportunity for the mother to withdraw her plea. The court reasoned that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c) requires a parent entering a consent plea to do so voluntarily and with full understanding of the possible consequences, which was not satisfied here given the mismatch between the plea understanding and the final disposition.
In Louzon v. State, Anthony Louzon was convicted after a jury trial of robbery with a weapon based on testimony from the alleged victim, Mark Stallings, and two co-defendants who identified Louzon as the perpetrator. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor made several improper comments during closing arguments. These comments suggested, without supporting evidence, that Stallings had been threatened by or on behalf of Louzon to recant his identification, which was deemed highly prejudicial as it implied separate crimes of witness tampering and suborning perjury. The court also briefly addressed but rejected Louzon's challenge to his eligibility for prison releasee reoffender sentencing, finding that legal custody by the Department of Corrections sufficed even without physical transfer to a facility.
Jeffrey Goldberg was convicted after a jury trial of grand theft from a person sixty-five years of age or older. The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison despite his scoresheet totaling less than twenty-three points, without making written findings that a non-state prison sanction could present a danger to the public. Florida statute section 775.082(10) requires a non-state prison sanction for such offenses with twenty-two or fewer points unless the court makes those specific written findings. Although Goldberg filed a motion to correct the sentencing error, the trial court again failed to include the required findings in its order. The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing to a non-state prison sanction.
The case involved the State of Florida appealing the dismissal of criminal charges against Annette Latona for possession of oxycodone and morphine. The charges stemmed from police finding prescription pill bottles belonging to her patient H.H. in her purse during a traffic stop, where Latona claimed she was authorized to hold them as his home health nurse and attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney. Latona moved to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), asserting a prescription defense, and the trial court granted it after finding the State's traverse insufficient to raise a factual dispute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the power of attorney expressly permitted Latona to hold H.H.'s property including medications, and absent any notice of revocation to her, H.H.'s later statement to police did not create a material factual issue precluding dismissal.