William D. Palmer

This case involved Roger Taylor's appeal of a decision by the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) denying him unemployment compensation benefits after his termination from Discount Furniture Mart. Taylor had been fired after providing doctor's notes indicating he could not return to work due to health issues, and the UAC found he had quit or abandoned his job. The court reversed the UAC's ruling, determining that the appeals referee's decision in favor of Taylor was supported by competent substantial evidence and that the UAC had improperly substituted its judgment for that of the referee. The reasoning centered on the fact that the employer did not inform Taylor of the acceptable terms of his leave, so his absence did not constitute voluntary departure or misconduct under the relevant statute.

labor & employment

This case involved a rear-end auto collision in which plaintiff Dianna Douglas-Seibert sued defendants Louis Riccucci and Tarmac America, LLC, alleging negligence by the driver and owner of the cement truck that struck her vehicle from behind. After the close of evidence, the trial court denied her motion for a directed verdict on the issue of Riccucci's negligence but granted it on her own lack of comparative negligence; the jury then returned a verdict for the defendants. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida law creates a presumption of negligence by the rear driver in such collisions and that the defendants failed to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption under recognized exceptions, such as a sudden or improper stop by the lead driver that could not reasonably have been anticipated.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Bridges v. State, the defendant appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which alleged two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to the State's late notice of Williams rule evidence and counsel's advice to enter a nolo contendere plea to lewd or lascivious molestation charges. The appellate court reversed the denial of ground one, finding that the trial court improperly rejected the claim about a potential motion to exclude the evidence based solely on the shared statute violated, without considering the factual differences alleged between the incidents. It also reversed because the trial court failed to address or provide rationale for denying the second claim regarding counsel's alleged statements about jury bias and harsh sentencing. The court remanded for attachment of record portions refuting the claims or for an evidentiary hearing, while affirming the denial of the motion's other grounds.

criminal lawprocedure

Richard Lamerton appealed his convictions for one count of use of a child in a sexual performance and five counts of possession of child pornography, as well as his sentence. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error. However, it determined that a probation condition prohibiting contact with anyone under age 18 was improperly broad, as established by precedent in Rowles v. State. The court therefore reversed the probation order and remanded the case for entry of a revised order. During the appeal, Lamerton had also raised the probation issue in a separate motion, but no new order had been entered at the trial level.

criminal lawprocedure

In Glenn v. State, the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and resisting an officer with violence after an altercation with a police officer who responded to the defendant driving his car into a lake. The defendant and the officer provided conflicting accounts of the incident, with the defendant claiming the officer struck him first with a baton without provocation. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a jury instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force in self-defense. On appeal, the court reversed those convictions, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion because the defendant's version of events was sufficient to support the instruction when the evidence was conflicting, and it remanded for a new trial on those counts while affirming the rest of the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State appealing the trial court's dismissal of an aggravated battery by a detained person charge against Samantha Converse, who had thrown hot coffee at another inmate while in prison, resulting in her receiving disciplinary confinement from the Department of Corrections. Converse argued that the criminal prosecution violated double jeopardy because the administrative discipline already punished her for the same incident. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the motion was legally insufficient because Converse did not show that the discipline was criminal under the controlling statute or rule, or that the scheme was so punitive in purpose or effect as to transform it into a criminal penalty. Relying on Hudson v. United States, the court explained that double jeopardy protects only against multiple criminal punishments and requires a facial two-step statutory analysis, which could not be performed without the relevant statute or regulation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a motion for sanctions filed by C.O.D. Trees Partnership against Carden & Associates, Inc. and Lenwood Hollister, Jr., for failing to attend an appellate mediation session as ordered by the court. The court granted the motion, finding that the parties violated Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.720 by not having the required party representatives present, with only the insurance company representative and attorney attending. The court reasoned that the rules mandate the physical presence of the party or its representative, and insurance representatives cannot substitute without court approval, citing relevant precedents from trial and appellate contexts. As sanctions, Carden and Hollister were ordered to pay the mediator's fees and the appellee's reasonable costs and attorneys' fees related to the mediation and motion.

procedure

The case involved Alejandro Garcia, who held power of attorney for his mother, a former resident at a nursing home operated by Kissimmee Health Care Associates and related entities. Garcia filed suit alleging violations of his mother's rights under Florida's nursing home statutes, sections 400.022-.023, after the facility did not respond to presuit document requests. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Garcia had failed to participate in presuit mediation as required by section 400.0233(11). The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court upheld that ruling on certiorari review. The court reasoned that although the statute uses mandatory language directing the parties to mediate, it does not identify which party must initiate mediation or expressly state that mediation is a condition precedent to filing suit, in contrast to other subsections that clearly impose such conditions.

healthcareprocedure

In Joshi v. Joshi, the husband appealed the trial court's final judgment dissolving the marriage, specifically challenging the allocation of an $1,800 stimulus check to him in the equitable distribution. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in most respects but reversed the portion concerning the stimulus check. The court reasoned that the record lacked any evidence that the check was actually received by the marital household, as the wife testified she never received it, making the trial court's assignment an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the case was remanded for removal of that value from the distribution scheme and any necessary adjustments.

family lawproperty

In Brady v. State, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence after being convicted of aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer with a firearm finding and sentenced to life imprisonment as an upward departure. The court affirmed the denial of his double jeopardy claim because it had been rejected in prior appeals and was barred by the law of the case doctrine. However, the court reversed the denial regarding the reclassification of his conviction from a second-degree to a first-degree felony, holding that reclassification under the firearm enhancement statute was improper when the jury received instructions on both the great bodily harm and deadly weapon forms of aggravated battery and returned a general verdict of guilty as charged, making it unclear whether the firearm use was an essential element. The case was remanded for resentencing consistent with the original felony degree, as the life sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.

criminal lawprocedure

In LG v. State, a juvenile appealed a trial court order that incorporated a Department of Juvenile Justice community-based treatment plan into his probation following a conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding there was no reversible error in requiring compliance with both the psychosexual evaluation recommendations and the treatment plan as probation conditions. However, the court remanded for entry of a clarifying order on the required residence because the psychosexual evaluation specified living with the mother's cousin while the treatment plan specified living with the mother. The decision emphasized the need to resolve this inconsistency in the probation terms.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Christopher Thomas Hays, convicted of failing to comply with sex offender reporting requirements under Florida law after he represented himself at trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The core reasoning was that a defendant's waiver of counsel at one stage does not extend to later stages, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.111(d)(5) along with precedent require the trial court to renew the offer of counsel at each subsequent critical stage, including sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

R.L.F., a stepfather, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appellate court to order the trial court to conduct dependency proceedings under Chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes, treat him as a party, and grant him access to confidential records concerning his stepchildren. The record showed that the trial court was already conducting the proceedings and allowing R.L.F. to participate as a party, rendering those portions of the petition moot. On the remaining claim for access to confidential DCF investigative reports and court records, the court held that R.L.F. failed to demonstrate a clear legal right or an indisputable duty by the trial court, because sections 39.0132 and 39.202 limit automatic access to parents, legal custodians, and certain enumerated parties, leaving step-parents subject to the trial court's discretion. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

family lawprocedure

In Santarelli v. State, the defendant was charged with two felony counts of manslaughter, along with misdemeanor counts of allowing an open house party and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, after hosting a party where minors consumed alcohol and two minors later died in a car crash. The trial court denied her pretrial motion to dismiss the manslaughter counts, which alleged that her violation of Florida's open house party statute and other negligent acts constituted culpable negligence causing the deaths; she was acquitted on the manslaughter charges but convicted on the misdemeanors. On appeal, the court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged culpable negligence and causation to support the manslaughter charges, rejecting arguments that the statute violation was only simple negligence, that the minors' actions were superseding causes, or that social hosts lack a duty to prevent intoxicated driving. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, thereby upholding jurisdiction over and the convictions on the misdemeanor counts. The decision relied on the charging document's allegations of intentional and negligent acts in addition to the statutory violation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Shade v. State, an incarcerated defendant appealed a trial court order that partially granted and partially denied his motion for return of personal property seized by law enforcement during a search of his home in connection with drug convictions, with some items withheld as potential contraband. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the trial court erred by deciding the motion without an evidentiary hearing at which the defendant could be present despite his requests. The court reasoned that trial courts have inherent authority over such motions once they have jurisdiction, and due process principles from precedents like Benedetti v. State and Bolden v. State require affording the defendant notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the chance to testify on factual questions within his knowledge, similar to post-conviction procedures.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

Leah Britt sued Bank of America after it charged her a $5 convenience fee to cash a payroll check drawn on the bank by her employer, alleging that the fee violated Florida Statute section 655.85, which requires banks to settle checks drawn on them at par. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court held that federal regulations expressly permit national banks to charge such fees when cashing checks. Because the state statute would prohibit an activity allowed under federal law, it is preempted by federal authority under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4002 and related OCC interpretive letters. The decision relied on precedent from other courts reaching the same conclusion about section 655.85.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a judgment creditor who obtained a $125,000 judgment against a debtor corporation and then initiated supplementary proceedings to implead the corporation's officers for allegedly fraudulent transfers of approximately $102,000 from the company's accounts to themselves. The trial court found the transfers violated Florida's fraudulent transfer statutes and held the officers jointly and severally liable for the full amount. On appeal, the court affirmed the liability determination, citing evidence of transfers made after the lawsuit was filed while the company was insolvent, but reversed the joint and several liability ruling. The appellate court reasoned that section 56.29 of the Florida Statutes authorizes recovery only of property each individual received, so each officer could be held liable only for their specific $34,000 share.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Newton W. McLeod appealing his convictions and sentences for three counts of attempted second degree murder with a firearm, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and cannabis possession after a jury trial. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's handling of counts set aside on double jeopardy grounds without adjudication. However, it reversed the life sentence on one attempted second degree murder count because the maximum penalty under the applicable statutes was 30 years even with firearm enhancements, following precedent that the minimum mandatory did not create a higher statutory maximum, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal law

The case involved L.T. filing a dependency petition on behalf of his orphaned nephew K.S.L., whose parents had died and who had been released to L.T. by federal immigration authorities, seeking an adjudication that would support a special immigrant juvenile visa application. The trial court dismissed the dependency petition while granting L.T. legal custody, concluding the child was not dependent because L.T. qualified as a caregiver. The appellate court reversed, holding that under section 39.01(15)(e) of the Florida Statutes an orphaned child without a legal custodian is dependent as a matter of law, following the precedent in F.L.M. v. Department of Children and Families. The court rejected the trial court's reliance on S.H. v. Department of Children and Families and found that arguments concerning subject-matter jurisdiction, notice, and mootness lacked support or had been waived.

family law

In Harris v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction for burglary of a dwelling under Florida Statute section 810.02(1)(b)2.c., which defines burglary as remaining in a dwelling after a licensed or invited entry with the intent to commit a forcible felony. The undisputed facts showed that the defendant and a co-defendant pushed their way into an apartment without consent, brandished a BB gun, robbed the occupants, and fled. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, but the appellate court reversed the burglary conviction, holding that the State failed to present any evidence of a licensed or invited entry as required by the plain language of the statute, its legislative history following Delgado v. State, supporting case law, and the standard jury instructions. The court affirmed all other judgments and sentences and remanded for vacation of the burglary conviction.

criminal lawprocedure