In Weathers v. State, the appellant challenged his sentences after his probation was revoked in two consolidated cases, one for aggravated assault and one for burglary, both of which resulted in five-year prison terms with credit for time served. The court affirmed the sentence in the aggravated assault case because the offense predated the sentencing guidelines and the defendant had not affirmatively elected to be sentenced under them. In the burglary case, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding that the trial court's departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence was based on invalid reasons including prior record and threat to society, even though the defendant's multiple probation violations constituted a valid departure reason, and it was unclear whether the court would have departed on the valid reason alone.
The case involved John Williams appealing orders placing him on probation after his nolo contendere plea to burglary and petit theft charges. The appellate court affirmed the $200 court costs under section 27.3455 because the ex post facto objection was not raised at trial, though it noted the issue could be pursued via a postconviction motion. It reversed the costs under section 960.20 for lack of required notice and hearing, corrected the order to assess attorney's fees under the proper statute for public defender representation, and remanded for a judicial determination of restitution amount, while holding that the ability-to-pay objection was not preserved. The reasoning focused on rules for preserving issues for appeal and ensuring compliance with statutory procedures in imposing probation conditions.
This case involved an appeal from a trial court order striking a defendant's motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, on the ground that he was no longer 'in custody' after completing a jail term imposed as a condition of probation for his conviction of practicing dentistry without a license. The court reversed the order and remanded for further proceedings on the motion. It held that a probationer's status must be assessed at the time the motion was initially filed and that probation constitutes 'custody' for rule 3.850 purposes because it involves a sufficient restraint on liberty, drawing on the scope of the common-law writ of habeas corpus. The decision rejected contrary rulings from other districts and certified a conflict.
The case involved a condominium association's lawsuit against C.B.T. Realty Corporation for construction defects in a condominium development, resulting in an adverse final judgment after a nonjury trial that C.B.T. appealed, along with a separate appeal challenging a postjudgment award of costs. The court affirmed the judgment on the merits in favor of the association. On the costs award, the court held that costs may be taxed after an appeal is filed and that out-of-state expert travel expenses were properly awarded under the statewide uniform guidelines, but reversed the taxation of the expert's waiting time at the courthouse and the attorney's travel time for an out-of-state deposition and document production, as those items are not taxable under the guidelines absent special authorization. The matter was remanded to correct the cost judgment accordingly.
The case concerned a lounge owner's lawsuit against a city and its employees alleging that their enforcement of fire and life safety codes—through a large-scale police and fire department response to an occupancy violation, abrupt closure of the business, and repeated reductions in the approved occupancy load—violated constitutional rights and caused business damages. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and for common-law tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. The court affirmed dismissal of the § 1985 and tortious interference claims because the complaint failed to plead a cognizable business relationship and affirmed other aspects of the dismissal order, but reversed dismissal of the § 1983 claims on the ground that sovereign immunity did not bar them and remanded for further proceedings.
Roxanne Williams was convicted after a bench trial of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injuries under Florida law. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that she willfully left the scene despite her intoxication defense. The court reversed the probation condition requiring restitution to her employer or insurer, holding that the damages lacked a significant relationship to the convicted offense of leaving the scene and that the condition violated due process by potentially encompassing accident damages and a civil judgment against a third party. The error was addressed despite lack of preservation because of the constitutional issue.