Robert Morris

In Holmes v. State, the defendant appealed the revocation of his probation in three circuit court cases as well as his convictions and sentences for armed burglary of a dwelling, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, false imprisonment, and grand theft motor vehicle in a fourth case. The court affirmed the probation revocation without comment and affirmed the convictions and sentences in the fourth case. It remanded only for correction of the written sentencing documents to remove references to the 10-20-Life firearm enhancement under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, because the trial court had granted a judgment of acquittal on the actual possession of a firearm and the written documents did not conform to the oral pronouncement. The defendant had preserved the issue via a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, which was deemed denied after the written order was never corrected.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Stacy Lee Watts appealing the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 following his convictions for carjacking, aggravated fleeing to elude, driving with a suspended license, and possession of paraphernalia, for which he received a life sentence as a habitual offender. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Watts's original motion and most claims in his amended motion, including those alleging trial court error in failing to order mental health examinations and a competency hearing, which were deemed procedurally barred as they should have been raised on direct appeal. However, the court reversed and remanded on the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Watts's mental health and seek a competency determination, because the postconviction court did not address the claim and the attached record excerpts did not conclusively refute it. The matter was sent back for the lower court to either attach refuting record portions or hold an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Duke v. State, Laurence Alvin Duke petitioned for a writ of certiorari after the circuit court reversed a county court's order granting his motion to suppress evidence in a 2009 driving under the influence case. The county court had suppressed the evidence after reviewing an officer's testimony and a video of the stop, concluding that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion of impairment because the officer's stated reasons were not credible. The circuit court reversed, finding that the officer's unconverted testimony and the video established reasonable suspicion based on erratic driving. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by applying an incorrect standard of review, reweighing the evidence, and making its own credibility determinations instead of deferring to the county court's factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence. It therefore vacated the circuit court's order and remanded with directions to reinstate the county court's suppression order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by the estate of a deceased child against the treating physician following the child's death. After a jury verdict for the defense, the estate sought a new trial based on alleged improper conduct by defense counsel during trial, but did not move for a mistrial. On remand from the Florida Supreme Court to apply the preservation rules from Companioni v. City of Tampa and the fundamental error analysis from Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, the appellate court determined that the extensive, unpreserved misconduct met the high threshold for fundamental error because it was improper, harmful, incurable, and undermined the fairness of the trial. Although a successor judge had denied the motion for new trial, the court held that the original presiding judge's observations and the record supported granting relief. It therefore reversed the denial and remanded for a new trial.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

Jessica Compton appealed the summary denial of her Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion for postconviction relief, claiming her consecutive five-year prison sentences after a probation violation were illegal because they imposed habitual felony offender enhancements for offenses from the same criminal episode, contrary to Hale v. State. The motion included scoresheets showing HFO designation but did not explicitly allege the offenses occurred in one episode, and the postconviction court rejected the claim on the merits after reviewing the written judgment and an arrest affidavit. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the motion was facially insufficient and that the lower court should have dismissed it with leave to amend rather than deciding the merits based on hearsay documents or records that could not resolve whether the offenses were part of the same episode.

criminal lawprocedure

Bernard Dixon appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court affirmed the denial, following its prior decision in Barrios-Cruz v. State. It held that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, which addressed counsel's obligations regarding immigration consequences of pleas, does not apply retroactively to postconviction proceedings. The court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether Padilla should be applied retroactively in such cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bowling, the insureds sued their insurer for uninsured motorist coverage after a car accident, claiming damages including medical expenses, and the jury returned a verdict exceeding the $100,000 policy limits. The trial court had excluded State Farm's expert witness on medical billing and coding who would have testified that some provider charges lacked supporting documentation in the records. The appellate court reversed the final judgment and remanded for a new trial solely on damages, holding that the expert's specialized knowledge would assist the jury in assessing the reasonableness and necessity of the medical expenses under Florida law and was therefore admissible under section 90.702.

proceduretorts & liability

Orson W. Benn appealed the summary dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The postconviction court had incorrectly determined that the State had not amended the information to remove certain counts after the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal. Despite this error in the lower court's findings, the appellate court concluded that Benn's motion lacked merit on other grounds. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the motion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a father's appeal of a family court order granting the mother sole parental responsibility and sole timesharing of their four children. The father, who is incarcerated, was permitted to appear telephonically at the final hearing but did not do so, leading the trial court to issue the order in his absence and later deny his motion for rehearing. On appeal, the father argued that prison officials prevented him from making the call despite his efforts. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the father has a due process right to be heard in civil matters and should be given an opportunity on rehearing to present evidence that he attempted to appear but was prevented by circumstances beyond his control.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, Mourad Balzourt appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and abuse of a dead human body after being found guilty of strangling his girlfriend and burning her body in Florida. The appellate court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the premeditation required for first-degree murder and that the trial court improperly admitted Williams rule evidence of a prior strangulation incident involving his ex-wife, as the acts were not similar enough in circumstances to establish identity. The court therefore reversed the first-degree murder conviction, concluded the evidence supported only second-degree murder, and remanded for a new trial on second-degree murder and the abuse charge while barring retrial on first-degree murder due to double jeopardy. The reasoning focused on the lack of unique factual similarities between the prior act and the charged offense, as well as the absence of evidence showing a preconceived intent to kill.

criminal lawprocedure

In Barnes v. State, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking additional jail credit after his probation was revoked and he was resentenced. The court reversed the postconviction court's order and remanded for correction of the sentencing documents. It held that Barnes was entitled to 267 days of credit for time served in jail prior to his original sentence, in addition to the 22 days awarded for time pending resentencing, because a probation violator is entitled to such prior jail credit and the failure to award it would result in manifest injustice. The court rejected the successive-motion bar, noting that the Department of Corrections lacked authority to grant the credit without a trial court order and that prior administrative efforts had not resolved the issue.

criminal lawprocedure

In Skyrme v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, Charleen Skyrme sought to amend a timely filed personal injury complaint against tobacco defendants—originally brought under the Engle class action framework—to assert a wrongful death claim after her husband’s death and to substitute herself as personal representative of his estate. The circuit court denied the motions to amend and substitute, prompting Skyrme to petition for certiorari review. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the denial of a motion to amend is generally not reviewable by certiorari because any error can be corrected on appeal from a final order of dismissal, which should follow given that the personal injury claim is extinguished upon death under section 768.20. The court distinguished the facts from its prior decision in Niemi v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., noting that Skyrme had sought to add a wrongful death claim and that no independent claims remained pending.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed by nurse Michelle Campbell against Alterra Healthcare Corporation and two employees after she was arrested on drug theft charges based on their reports of missing medications during her temporary shift at a Sterling House facility. The trial court entered judgment for Campbell, and the appellate court affirmed, addressing only the elements of probable cause and legal cause. The court held that Alterra lacked probable cause because it knew or should have known that the information given to police—such as claims of prior theft suspicions and no other drug incidents—was false, given evidence of routine prior thefts at the facility and continued thefts after Campbell's firing. It further concluded that Alterra was the legal cause of the prosecution because it failed to disclose subsequent thefts that could have led to dismissal of the charges. The decision rests on competent substantial evidence supporting the jury's findings on these elements.

criminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved Reyes Herrera Molina's conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs after selling oxycodone to an undercover officer, with the defense centered on misidentification. On appeal, the court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court committed harmful error by preventing the defense from commenting during closing arguments on the State's failure to call the confidential informant (CI) as a witness. The core reasoning was that the CI was peculiarly within the State's power to produce and the informant's testimony would have elucidated the transaction, but the trial court improperly speculated that the CI was equally available to the defense without first conducting an in camera hearing to assess whether disclosure of the CI's identity was warranted. The error was not harmless because the State's identification evidence was not overwhelming, as shown by the officer's limited markers tying Molina to the buy and the jury's questions during deliberations about the truck and language used.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Wright, the State charged the defendant with armed kidnapping after an alleged incident involving his former partner, who had obtained a domestic violence injunction against him. The State sought to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior acts of domestic violence and threats against the victim to show motive and intent, but the trial court excluded it under Florida's similar fact evidence rule, section 90.404(2), as relevant only to bad character or propensity. The appellate court granted the State's petition for certiorari, finding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law because the evidence was relevant under the general relevancy rule in section 90.402 and its probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice. The court quashed the trial court's exclusion order, allowing the evidence to be admitted.

criminal lawprocedure

Christopher Munroe appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not advising him of a defense to failing to register as a sexual offender based on his false imprisonment conviction. The court affirmed the denial after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Munroe was required to register under the applicable statute because the victim was a minor and that counsel reasonably found a sexual component to the offense. The opinion also clarified the scope of a prior decision, limiting challenges to cases where the state undisputedly concedes the absence of any sexual element in the qualifying offense.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the Mathieus, after discovering water damage to their home, sued Innovative Flooring for negligence and separately filed a declaratory judgment action against its insurer, Southern Owners, seeking to determine coverage under the policy for their claims. Southern Owners moved to dismiss the declaratory action, arguing that section 627.4136, Florida's nonjoinder statute, barred the suit because the Mathieus had not first obtained a settlement or verdict against the insured. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court granted Southern Owners' petition for certiorari, quashed the denial order, and directed dismissal of the action. The court reasoned that the statute makes obtaining a settlement or verdict a condition precedent to any cause of action by a non-insured against the liability insurer, and allowing the declaratory judgment to proceed would force the insurer to litigate a claim that had not yet accrued. The court rejected arguments that a separate proceeding or other considerations could bypass the statutory requirement.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Nelson Gabriel Deleon’s appeal of his convictions for carjacking with a deadly weapon and resisting an officer without violence. The court affirmed the resisting conviction but reversed the carjacking conviction and sentence, remanding for entry of judgment on the lesser offense of carjacking as charged. The core reasoning was that the information charged only carjacking with a firearm, yet the jury was instructed on the uncharged theory of carjacking with a deadly weapon, which was not a proper lesser-included offense under the statute or facts alleged; this constituted fundamental error violating due process by convicting the defendant of an offense not charged. The court also noted a sentencing discrepancy that became moot due to the reversal.

criminal law

James Garrett appealed the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief after pleading no contest to reduced charges of attempted sexual battery on a child, lewd molestation, and lewd and lascivious exhibition. His claim at issue alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call a neighbor witness who purportedly could have testified that the victim admitted lying about the offenses. The postconviction court denied the claim on the ground that the witness was unwilling to testify, but the appellate court reversed that portion of the order, holding that the record did not conclusively refute Garrett's allegations of availability and prejudice to his plea decision, and remanded either to attach refuting record portions or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Benjamin Atkinson sued his former employer Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. for age discrimination, and a jury awarded him substantial damages including over $1.7 million in past and future lost wages plus more than $3.5 million in noneconomic damages for pain and suffering. The trial court reduced the punitive damages award but denied the employer's motion for remittitur on the compensatory damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of motions for juror interview and new trial but reversed the denial of remittitur, concluding that the noneconomic damages were excessive as a matter of law in a typical age discrimination case lacking evidence of physical injury or medical or psychological treatment, and that the lost wages award exceeded the amount proven at trial and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court remanded with directions for the trial court to determine the proper reduced amounts and offer the plaintiff the option to accept them or proceed to a new trial on damages.

labor & employmentcivil rights