Robert M. Gross

The case involved Christina Yacoub's appeal of her felony DUI conviction, which was based on two prior 2002 misdemeanor DUI pleas. Yacoub challenged the felony charge by asserting that one of the prior convictions was uncounseled, raising a jurisdictional issue under Florida law. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for resentencing as a misdemeanor, holding that Yacoub had met her initial burden to show the prior offense was punishable by imprisonment, her indigency, lack of appointed counsel, and no waiver. Once that burden shifted, the state provided no evidence such as transcripts, waivers, or testimony to prove counsel was provided or validly waived, failing to satisfy the requirements from State v. Kelly and State v. Beach.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a declaratory judgment action between Sunshine State Insurance Company, issuer of a homeowner's policy, and Geico, issuer of an automobile policy, to determine which insurer had the duty to defend and indemnify an insured passenger in a car accident. The underlying incident involved a passenger grabbing the steering wheel during horseplay, causing the driver to lose control and crash. The trial court ruled that the passenger's conduct did not constitute "use" of the vehicle under the auto policy, so Geico had no coverage obligation while Sunshine State's policy applied because its motor vehicle exclusion was not triggered. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the claims did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the auto as defined in the policies and that the auto policy's permission requirement for non-owned vehicles was not met.

torts & liability

The case concerned Roderick Walker, who was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school. To rebut the state's use of $3,000 in cash as evidence of intent to sell, Walker attempted to introduce his fiancée's check stub showing that she had received and cashed a large paycheck from her 401(k) and given him $3,000. The trial court excluded the check stub on hearsay grounds, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the check stub was a written assertion offered for its truth and thus hearsay under Florida statute, and that it did not qualify for any exception such as the business records exception, unlike a negotiable instrument such as the check itself.

criminal lawprocedure

In Covington v. State, the defendant was charged with grand theft for shoplifting groceries from Publix in an incident captured on surveillance video that was later recorded over. During closing arguments, the prosecutor responded to the defense's emphasis on the absent video by stating that the defendant could have obtained and shown it, an argument the court found factually inaccurate because the defendant was unaware of the video during the relevant time period and one that improperly shifted the burden of proof. The appellate court reviewed the full record, concluded the error was not harmless, and reversed the conviction while remanding for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice action brought by the estate of Susan Special against an anesthesiologist, his practice groups, and a hospital, alleging negligence in the administration of anesthesia, monitoring, and response to cardiopulmonary arrest during a cesarean delivery that resulted in her death. The defendants maintained that the death was caused by amniotic fluid embolus (AFE), a diagnosis of exclusion supported by their expert. The trial court limited the plaintiff's cross-examination of the defense expert regarding the reliability of an AFE diagnosis in light of unusually high incidence rates at the hospital. On appeal, the en banc court affirmed the defense judgment, receding from prior precedent that applied an outcome-determinative "but-for" harmless error test in civil cases and instead adopting the standard that the beneficiary of an error must demonstrate it is more likely than not that the error did not influence the trier of fact and contribute to the verdict; under this test, the limitation on cross-examination was deemed harmless.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

Joseph Williams was convicted of first-degree murder of his estranged wife after a jury trial in which his defense claimed the killing occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to establish premeditation and the trial court's admission of two photographs showing the victim's decomposed body. The court determined that the evidence, including Williams's statements and the circumstances of the killing, presented a question for the jury on premeditation. It further held that the photographs were relevant to the medical examiner's testimony on cause of death and identity and were not so gruesome as to be unduly prejudicial under the balancing test of section 90.403, Florida Statutes. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Tracey v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of possession of cocaine, fleeing and eluding, driving with a revoked license as a habitual offender, and resisting arrest. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from real-time cell site location information (CSLI) collected by law enforcement during surveillance of his movements on public roads. The court held that the use of real-time CSLI did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the tracking occurred only in public areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Although the collection of prospective CSLI violated a provision of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, the court concluded that the statutory violation did not require suppression of the evidence under the exclusionary rule, as that remedy was not authorized for such a violation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a claim of negligent misrepresentation brought by an assignee of a lender against a sports memorabilia appraisal business and its president. The lender had relied on the defendants' appraisal valuing a collection of baseball items at $350,000 to $400,000 as collateral for a $203,000 loan, but a later appraisal revealed the signatures were inauthentic and the items had little value. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the defendants had a sufficient pecuniary interest in the transaction because they were in the business of providing appraisals and knew the purpose of the evaluation. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 552, the court concluded that such a business interest justified imposing a duty of reasonable care, unlike a gratuitous opinion, and that the complaint adequately alleged breach of that duty causing the lender's loss.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Chance Joe's appeal of his conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon, in which he challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a recorded post-arrest statement. Joe argued that his remark during Miranda warnings—I ain't got nothing to say—constituted an invocation of his right to remain silent that required the detective to stop questioning. The court affirmed the conviction and denied rehearing, holding that the statement, viewed in full context with Joe's tone and subsequent conversation, expressed a willingness to talk and lack of knowledge about the incident rather than an invocation of rights. The court applied precedents distinguishing equivocal statements after waiver from clear invocations and found no error in admitting the statement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Broward County voters could amend their county charter to limit county commissioners to three consecutive terms. The circuit court had invalidated the term limit based on prior precedent in Cook v. City of Jacksonville. The appellate court reversed, holding that Cook applied only to specific county officers listed in article VIII, section 1(d) of the Florida Constitution, such as sheriffs and clerks, and did not extend to county commissioners. The court reasoned that sections 1(e) and 1(g) grant charter counties broad home-rule powers that allow voters to impose term limits on commissioners, distinguishing them from the offices addressed in Cook. Thus, the term limit provision was upheld as valid.

elections

In Aders v. State, the case centered on whether a deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle after a database check revealed a color mismatch between the black Honda observed and its registration as light blue. The deputy stopped the car, obtained consent to search, and found drugs, leading to charges; the defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that such a discrepancy can reasonably suggest the tag was improperly transferred or the vehicle stolen, justifying an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio even though Florida law does not require owners to update vehicle color on registration. The decision relied on an objective evaluation of facts rather than the officer's subjective intent and aligned with rulings from other states.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a breach of lease lawsuit filed by Weston TC LLLP against CNDP Marketing Inc. and Helen C. Schur Parris in Florida circuit court. After nearly a year of inactivity following initial discovery and a sanctions motion, the defendants sought dismissal for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), and the trial court granted it based on the plaintiff's notice of its attorney's unavailability. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal, concluding that the January 2010 notice qualified as record activity within the rule's 60-day grace period. Relying on the Florida Supreme Court's bright-line test in Wilson v. Salamon, the court held that any filing in the record, even if not advancing the merits, prevents dismissal for failure to prosecute.

procedure

Atari Downs was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm based on evidence that he shot the victim after knocking on his door early one morning. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that testimony about a gun found in a roommate's bedroom in the same apartment was improperly admitted because the gun was unrelated to the charged offense and had no connection to Downs. Under Florida evidence statutes, the evidence was irrelevant to prove any material fact and its admission was not harmless error given inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts and the state's reliance on it during closing argument to imply access to firearms.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Mario Juarez, who was convicted after a jury trial of robbery with a firearm, grand theft, and false imprisonment, with the jury specifically finding that he did not actually possess the firearm during the offenses. The trial court imposed concurrent 14-year sentences and reclassified the grand theft and false imprisonment charges—typically third-degree felonies—as second-degree felonies under section 775.087(1) due to the firearm's involvement. The appellate court reversed only the reclassification portion of the sentence, reasoning that the statute and the Florida Supreme Court's decision in State v. Rodriguez require evidence of the defendant's personal possession of the weapon for enhancement and do not permit reclassification based on a codefendant's actions. The court affirmed the convictions and the remainder of the sentence, including rejecting other claims regarding double jeopardy and jury instructions.

criminal lawguns

This case arose from a commercial dispute between BGT Group, Inc. and Tradewinds Engine Services, LLC over the sale of used gas turbine parts, in which BGT sought to compel arbitration of breach-of-contract and fraud claims based on an arbitration clause in its separate "terms and conditions." The trial court denied BGT's motion to compel arbitration and granted Tradewinds' motion to stay arbitration. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the quote and invoice failed to sufficiently describe or attach the collateral "terms and conditions" document, so it was not validly incorporated by reference into the sales contract. The court reasoned that the documents provided no details on the location or content of the terms, which were not even provided to Tradewinds until after the dispute arose, meaning no valid agreement to arbitrate existed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Kingsway Amigo Insurance Company and Ocean Health, Inc., over the amount of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits owed for chiropractic treatments following a 2008 car accident. Kingsway paid at 80% of 200% of the Medicare Part B fee schedule, which was less than 80% of the billed amounts, relying on a 2008 statutory amendment. Ocean Health sued, and the county court entered summary judgment in its favor. The appellate court affirmed, answering the certified question in the negative. The core reasoning was that the statutory fee schedule option is permissive rather than mandatory, the insurance policy expressly required payment of 80% of reasonable medical expenses without referencing the fee schedule limits, and the policy language therefore controlled and required the higher reimbursement amount.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved DaimlerChrysler Insurance Company, as subrogee of a vehicle lessor, seeking recovery of a $1 million settlement paid after an accident caused by a lessee who had obtained inadequate liability insurance in violation of the lease terms. Daimler sued the lessee's insurer, broker, and agent, asserting negligence claims based on their alleged failure to ensure proper coverage for the leased vehicle as required by Florida law and standard underwriting practices. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed. Although equitable subrogation would permit Daimler to assert claims belonging to the lessor, the negligence cause of action failed because the defendants owed no legal duty to the lessor, given the lack of privity and any foreseeable zone of risk extending to that party.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Metz v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction for dealing in stolen property after selling a battery charger and leading police to other stolen tools. The trial court had allowed the state to introduce part of Metz's statement to police admitting the sale but excluded the portion where he said another person had given him the items and he did not know they were stolen until later. The appellate court reversed, holding that the rule of completeness under Florida Statute 90.108(1) required admission of the exculpatory part to prevent misleading impressions, as the state relied on the inference from recent possession of stolen goods to prove knowledge. The exclusion was not harmless because it directly related to an element of the offense.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dean v. State, Christopher Dean appealed his convictions for second-degree felony murder and burglary after his accomplice, Eric Flint, was killed by a resident during a high-speed chase following their burglary of an apartment. The trial court denied Dean's motion for judgment of acquittal on the felony murder charge, and the appellate court affirmed the convictions. The court reasoned that Flint's death occurred during the perpetration of the burglary because there was no break in the chain of circumstances, as Dean and Flint were in continuous flight without reaching a place of temporary safety, and the chase was a predictable result of the crime. The decision applied the felony murder statute, which holds a defendant liable when a person is killed during the commission of a felony like burglary by another person.

criminal law

The case involved MRI Associates of America seeking unpaid personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from State Farm for two MRI scans performed on an insured after a car accident, following an assignment of benefits. State Farm denied the claim based on an expert's paper peer review concluding the scans were not medically necessary, and the county court granted summary judgment for MRI Associates, finding the expert report invalid and the statutory prerequisites satisfied. On appeal, the circuit court reversed, holding that the expert report could support the denial and that the pre-suit demand letter was premature because the initial health insurance claim form did not specify the exact amount owed under section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (2006). The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied second-tier certiorari review, agreeing that the demand letter failed to meet the statute's precision requirements for itemized amounts, which are preconditions to suit, and that the circuit court applied the correct law from prior precedents. The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretation requiring exact amounts in claims and demand letters to trigger insurer obligations and avoid premature litigation.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory