Charles M. Harris

The case involved a negligence lawsuit by a fifteen-year-old plaintiff who injured her ankle in a storm drain at Walt Disney World's Downtown Disney complex after being directed to cross the street by a Disney crossing guard. The plaintiff claimed Disney was negligent in its mode of operation by channeling and directing guests to cross at a location with limited pedestrian safety, rather than alleging any defect in the drain itself. The trial court granted Disney a directed verdict after the plaintiff's case, finding insufficient evidence of negligence. The appellate court reversed, holding that evidence of the parking layout, landscaping, and crossing guard's directions could allow a reasonable jury to find that Disney breached its duty of reasonable care by creating a foreseeable risk, making the issues of breach and causation questions for the jury rather than appropriate for directed verdict. The court remanded for a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Michael Mordenti was convicted of first-degree murder for a third time based primarily on the testimony of Gail Mordenti Milligan, who claimed she arranged the murder-for-hire on behalf of the victim's husband, Larry Royston. The central issue was whether the trial court properly excluded testimony from Royston's attorney about statements Royston made before his suicide, including identifying someone else and denying any involvement by Mordenti. The majority of the District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in excluding this evidence on grounds of hearsay and attorney-client privilege, because any privilege had been waived or eliminated by the State's prior ex parte disclosure and the statements implicated core constitutional rights in determining guilt. The court therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. A dissent argued that the privilege protected the statements and would have affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

Michael Paul Pankow was convicted of aggravated child abuse after a two-year-old child in his custody suffered severe burns to her feet, which experts determined were consistent with intentional immersion rather than an accident involving spilled water. Pankow appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to rebut his defense, improper admission of testimony about the child's fear of baths and of expert testimony on unrelated bruising, and incorrect scoring of victim injury points. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the expert testimony sufficient to send the case to the jury, the probative value of the challenged testimony outweighed any prejudice, the defense opened the door to the bruising evidence, and any sentencing-point error was harmless.

criminal law

In Lopes v. Lopes, Lucilia Lopes sought a divorce after a fifteen-year marriage, but Luciano Lopes counterclaimed for annulment on the ground that her prior Dominican Republic divorce was invalid due to lack of residency by the parties, rendering their Connecticut marriage void under Florida law. The trial court annulled the marriage, finding it a nullity because the first marriage remained intact, and the appellate court affirmed, noting that common law or equitable marriages are not recognized in Florida and that the parties had not pleaded or proved the law of Connecticut or the Dominican Republic, leading to a presumption that those laws aligned with Florida's. The court further held that a third party like Luciano could challenge the validity of the prior divorce in this context and that the failure to raise issues such as full faith and credit below precluded consideration on appeal.

family lawprocedure

This case involved Allstate Insurance seeking to disqualify its former staff counsel, now at another firm, from handling multiple lawsuits against it in Brevard and Volusia County courts, on grounds that she was improperly using confidential information from her prior representation. Allstate asked the county courts to stay the disqualification motions while it pursued a related action in Orange County Circuit Court, but the courts denied the stays. The Brevard Circuit Court, acting in its appellate capacity, upheld the denials and awarded attorney's fees against Allstate under section 57.105, finding certiorari an improper remedy. The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and quashed the fee award, holding that certiorari was an appropriate procedural vehicle and that staying proceedings to resolve the disqualification issue in one forum would prevent unnecessary duplication across dozens of cases.

procedure

The case involved Jennifer Naylor, who enrolled in a police officer certification training program at Valencia Community College and signed a general release of liability. She was injured during the training and sued the college and others for negligence, but the release barred her recovery. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling upholding the validity of the release, finding no clear public policy in the relevant statutes that would invalidate such releases, and deferring to the legislature on matters of public policy regarding police training.

criminal lawtorts & liability

In State v. Ferreira, the State appealed a trial court's correction of sentences imposed on Anthony Ferreira for convictions arising from a single criminal incident: life imprisonment without parole for first-degree murder and a consecutive 30-year habitual offender term for attempted armed robbery. The issue was whether the consecutive structure violated the rule from Hale v. State, which prohibits enhancing multiple sentences through habitual offender classification and then further increasing the total by making them consecutive. The State argued Hale did not apply because only one conviction received the habitual enhancement, but the court reasoned that the overall sentence was still doubly enhanced due to the habitual classification regardless of order. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to apply Hale and correct the sentencing structure.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a farmer cited by Orange County for operating an unauthorized junkyard on agriculturally zoned land due to storing equipment such as a bushhog, bulldozer, and backhoe outdoors. The Code Enforcement Board found a violation after a hearing where the county presented multiple witnesses on issues like contamination and pests, but the farmer was restricted from offering expert testimony on whether the equipment served farm purposes, despite a state statute protecting farm operations from nuisance claims. The circuit court upheld the Board's decision, but the District Court of Appeal granted certiorari, quashed the order, and remanded for a new hearing. The court reasoned that the farmer was denied due process because administrative proceedings require the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and the Board failed to properly assess the equipment's agricultural use before imposing penalties.

propertyprocedureenvironment

The case involved Scott Hersey's appeal of his convictions for robbery with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, and aggravated assault, as well as his sentence under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed the convictions but initially found error in the scoresheet used at sentencing, remanding for resentencing without the three-strike enhancement and certifying a constitutional question about related statutes to the Florida Supreme Court. On rehearing, the State argued that chapter 02-210, Laws of Florida, retroactively cured a constitutional defect in chapter 99-188, and the court agreed, applying the reasoning from Dobbert v. Florida to uphold the original sentence. The court also certified the issue of the curative statute's constitutionality and retroactive effect as a question of exceptional importance.

criminal law

This case involves an appeal by a father, E.G., challenging a lower court's ruling that his two children were dependent on the state. The Department of Children and Families presented evidence of ongoing cocaine dependence by both parents, leading the trial court to find that the children's physical, mental, and emotional health would be at substantial risk of imminent harm if they remained in parental custody. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, affirmed the dependency determination, holding that it was supported by competent evidence. The opinion is brief and concurs in the lower court's assessment without further elaboration.

family law

Vance sued Thomas for damages from an automobile accident. While Vance was incarcerated, the case went to mediation by telephone and a purported settlement of $8,500 was reached, though Vance denied authorizing it. Vance's counsel sought an ex parte order directing the insurer to pay fees and costs directly to the lawyer based on the settlement, which the trial court granted without a specific finding that Vance had agreed; Vance then objected and sought relief, which was denied. The appellate court reversed, holding that notice limited to a request for fees was inadequate to permit enforcement of a contested settlement agreement, that the party asserting the settlement bears the burden of proving it, and that proper pleading and notice of a hearing on the issue are required.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a dispute between Florida Power Corporation and the City of Winter Park over the continued payment of a 6% franchise fee after their electrical services agreement expired and renegotiations reached an impasse. Florida Power continued using the city's rights-of-way without paying the fee, prompting the city to seek and obtain an injunction to enforce payment during the holdover period. The court affirmed the injunction, reasoning that the fee was a bargained-for rental agreed upon by the parties rather than a unilaterally imposed tax, and that Florida Power should be treated as a holdover franchisee obligated to pay the original terms while remaining in possession, consistent with landlord-tenant principles and prior precedent like City of Pensacola v. Southern Bell. The decision distinguished Alachua County v. State by noting that a negotiated fee remains enforceable during ongoing negotiations or arbitration.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this Florida divorce case, the trial court divided marital assets by awarding the husband his IBM pension valued at $224,459 and the wife the husband's 401K valued at $226,316, while denying the husband's request for alimony on the ground that his early voluntary retirement disqualified him. The appellate court held that this approach was flawed because it treated the pension as both a marital asset in the division and as income sufficient to meet the husband's needs, without evidence on his employability or imputed income. The court explained that the husband's decision to accept the employer's buyout during the intact marriage did not bar alimony if circumstances justified it, and that fairness required consistent treatment of the pension either as an asset or as income but not both. It reversed the denial of alimony and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard, while suggesting the trial court might also revisit the asset distribution.

family lawproperty

In BP v. State, a juvenile was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation of his step-sister based solely on a statement he made to police after his arrest on related sexual battery charges. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the statement was inadmissible because the officer continued questioning after the juvenile invoked his right to remain silent until his father arrived, in violation of Miranda and Edwards v. Arizona. The court further found that even if the statement were admissible, the trial court failed to hold the required hearing or identify corroborating evidence of trustworthiness under Florida Statute 92.565, which dispenses with the need to prove corpus delicti in sex offense cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Arthur, who was charged with felony driving after his license was revoked as a habitual traffic offender under Florida Statutes sections 322.34(5) and 322.264. The trial court admitted his certified driving record to prove the revocation, and Arthur was convicted. On appeal, the en banc court affirmed the conviction, holding that the elements of the offense are the Department's designation of habitual offender status and the resulting revocation, which the driving record adequately established and linked to Arthur through details like his name, address, birthdate, and social security number. The court reasoned that the underlying prior offenses need not be alleged or proven separately, as the remedy for any error in the record was to seek correction rather than continue driving, and it receded from its prior decision in Sylvester v. State to the extent of any conflict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a surety bond issued for the Polk County Parkway public works project, where claimant Florida Crushed Stone Company sought payment from American Home Assurance Company but had not complied with the 45-day notice and one-year limitation requirements of section 255.05(2), Florida Statutes. The bond substantially followed the statutory form but omitted certain details required by subsections (1) and (6). The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment for the surety, holding that section 255.05(4) requires all public works payment bonds to be treated as statutory bonds subject to subsection (2)'s restrictions, that no common law bond exists to bypass them, and that the surety could not be estopped from enforcing those restrictions because the experienced claimant failed to prove its noncompliance resulted from the bond's omissions. The court certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Glover v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction for capital sexual battery under section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes, arguing that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant's age of eighteen or older was an element of the offense. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. The court held that even if the standard jury instruction was erroneous in not explicitly treating the defendant's age as an element, any error was harmless because the instructions required the jury to determine the defendant's age before convicting on the capital charge and the evidence, including the defendant's appearance and booking admission, overwhelmingly established that he was thirty-seven years old.

criminal law

This case involved Albert Henly, who was convicted following a shooting incident in a bar in which he and others were injured. The sole issue on appeal was whether his sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm was properly enhanced under section 775.087(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, to require a minimum term of 25 years based on the discharge of a firearm causing great bodily harm. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the enhanced sentence on that charge and remanded for resentencing. The core reasoning was that Apprendi v. New Jersey requires the jury, not the judge, to make the factual findings necessary for the enhancement, and neither the conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm nor the related conviction for shooting into an occupied structure necessarily established that the firearm caused great bodily harm.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Medical Management Group of Orlando (MMGO), which sued State Farm for PIP insurance benefits after referring an auto accident victim for an MRI performed by Premier Advanced Imaging Network. Under their arrangement, Premier billed MMGO $350 for the scan while MMGO billed State Farm $1,400, claiming rights through assignments from the patient and Premier. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the setup amounted to an illegal fee-splitting scheme barred by section 817.505, Florida Statutes, and that MMGO's referral and billing activities did not qualify as reimbursable "medically necessary medical services" under the PIP statute, section 627.736(1)(a).

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a mother appealing a court order requiring her to participate in a case plan after her children were found dependent as to the father but not as to her. After the non-dependency finding, the mother stated she could not care for the children, leading to their placement with the maternal grandmother. The court decided to affirm the requirement of a case plan, reasoning that by admitting her inability to parent, the mother had voluntarily placed the children in out-of-home care, which under the statute allows for such a plan to help her resume effective parenting.

family law