The case involved a defendant's appeal from his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, raising claims of insufficient evidence of possession, facial unconstitutionality of the drug statute for lacking a scienter requirement, an unconstitutional sentence length under strict liability, and improper imposition of a $1500 public defender fee without a hearing or proof. The court affirmed the conviction, the statute's constitutionality, and the three-year sentence without discussion, citing prior precedent on constructive possession and scienter. On the fee issue, the court reversed because the trial court failed to advise the defendant of his right to a hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1), and a subsequent hearing on a postconviction motion was a nullity as it occurred after the sixty-day deadline, leading to remand for proper notice and hearing procedures if timely objected to.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the wife appealed the trial court's orders setting a time-sharing schedule for the parties' minor children, arguing that the court failed to consider the children's best interests, address parental responsibility, and create a parenting plan. The appellate court rejected the first argument, finding that the trial court had considered the children's best interests based on factors like stability and care arrangements. However, the court agreed with the second and third arguments, reversing the orders because the trial court did not establish shared parental responsibility or create a parenting plan as required by Florida Statutes section 61.13, and remanded for the creation of such a plan.
In Simon v. Simon, the wife appealed a circuit court's order limiting her temporary support, fees, and costs in a pending dissolution action based on the parties' amended prenuptial agreement. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that under established precedent from Belcher v. Belcher, support cannot be conclusively determined by a prenuptial agreement until the marriage is dissolved. The court reasoned that the "need and ability to pay test" from section 61.16, Florida Statutes, continues to apply in the temporary setting prior to dissolution. On remand, the lower court must apply this statutory test rather than the agreement's terms.
This case involves a post-divorce child custody dispute in which the father sought modification and emergency sole custody based on allegations that the mother was alienating the child and causing mental injury. During an evidentiary hearing on the father's motion, the family court judge sua sponte converted the proceeding into a shelter hearing under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, accepted evidence from the guardian ad litem and a Department investigator, and issued an order placing the child in the father's custody without allowing the mother to present her evidence or arguments despite her presence and request to be heard. The mother appealed, arguing a violation of due process. The District Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, granted the petition, and remanded with directions for the circuit court to conduct a proper shelter hearing, reasoning that the mother was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when present at such a proceeding.
The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder of one of two children under her care. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that she misled her boyfriend into believing he was the father of the other child, claiming the evidence was irrelevant to the charged murder. The appellate court agreed that the evidence was inadmissible because it was neither relevant nor inextricably intertwined with the crime. However, the court concluded the error was harmless, as no reasonable juror would have found it significant to the determination of guilt, and therefore affirmed the conviction.
The case involved plaintiffs suing public officials for defamation and libel or slander per se based on statements made within the scope of their duties. The court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal with prejudice, holding that section 768.095, Florida Statutes (2009), does not abrogate the common law absolute immunity afforded to public officials for such statements. The core reasoning was that the statute's text applies only to employers that are not public officials and lacks the clear language required to limit or override common law immunity, consistent with the court's prior decision in Bates v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office.