James B. Sanderlin

In Weathers v. State, the appellant challenged his sentences after his probation was revoked in two consolidated cases, one for aggravated assault and one for burglary, both of which resulted in five-year prison terms with credit for time served.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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

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.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rene Villavende's appeal from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel after pleading guilty to robbery charges. He alleged that his attorney failed to warn him, as a Cuban immigrant from the Mariel boatlift, that the convictions could lead to deportation, and an immigration judge had since ordered his removal. The court affirmed the denial, holding that deportation is a collateral consequence of a plea rather than a direct one, so the failure to advise on it does not constitute ineffective assistance absent affirmative misrepresentations by counsel or specific allegations that counsel knew of the defendant's foreign national status. The decision drew on federal and state precedents distinguishing collateral from direct consequences and declining to find ineffectiveness based solely on omission of deportation advice.

criminal lawimmigration

This case involved an appeal by a prisoner, Andrew Young, from a trial court order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the revocation of his parole by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. The trial court had dismissed the petition on two grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction over the respondents and insufficient factual allegations to support granting the writ. On appeal, the court noted that jurisdiction was proper in the circuit court of the county where the prisoner was detained and that the respondents had conceded this point. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal after finding that the trial court had also properly reached the merits and that competent, substantial evidence supported the parole revocation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Paschall v. State, the defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to nine counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court had imposed a sentence under the habitual offender statute as an alternative to the sentencing guidelines or, alternatively, a guidelines sentence with upward departure based on several reasons including a one-man crime spree, offenses committed while out on bond, discharging a firearm, and multiple victims. The appellate court held that the habitual offender statute is neither an alternative to the guidelines nor a valid reason for departure, citing Whitehead v. State. It further determined that while the crime spree rationale was a permissible basis for departure, the other reasons were either invalid because they were already factored into the guidelines scoresheet or not independent, and because the trial court relied on a mix of valid and invalid reasons without clear indication it would have departed on the valid reason alone, the sentence must be reversed. The court therefore reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Charles E. Blanton's appeal from his convictions for sexual performance by a child, capital sexual battery, sexual activity with a child, and two counts of sexual battery, along with the trial court's imposition of costs. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the claim that certain testimony was improperly admitted under the Williams Rule. It reversed the assessment of $200 in costs under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, because the trial court had not held a hearing to determine the appellant's ability to pay despite his prior adjudications of insolvency. The court also struck the clerk's denial of gain time for nonpayment of those costs and remanded with directions to restore the gain time and consider community service in lieu of costs.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a post-dissolution dispute in which the former husband moved to modify the final judgment of divorce by adding a restriction that would keep the parties' two minor children residing in the Lake Placid area of Highlands County, Florida. The original judgment awarded the former wife primary custody with no geographic limitation. The trial court granted the modification after finding that continued local contact with the father served the children's best interests. The District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the competent evidence showed the wife and her fiancé would fully facilitate the father's visitation rights, including by paying all travel costs, and that the wife's planned relocation to Atlanta for marriage and a higher-paying librarian position would therefore be in the children's best interests.

family law

In Smith v. State, the appellant challenged his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder after a jury trial in Florida. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of a requested jury instruction on sudden passion or in denying a motion for directed verdict. The court also affirmed the sentence for first-degree murder but reversed the sentence for attempted first-degree murder, holding that the trial court had improperly scored points on the sentencing guidelines for the capital felony conviction and for victim injury not applicable to the attempted murder charge. The case was remanded for resentencing within the guidelines or with a valid departure reason.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a products liability action brought by Katherine Small and her husband against Niagara Machine & Tool Works after Mrs. Small lost two fingers while operating a punch press manufactured by Niagara in 1950 and delivered to its initial purchaser that year. The plaintiffs sued in 1983, alleging negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant based on Florida's twelve-year statute of repose. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the statute barred any action filed more than twelve years after the product's delivery, regardless of when the injury occurred, as upheld in Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., and the later legislative repeal did not affect the outcome here.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the Sarasota Herald-Tribune challenging a trial judge's oral order, issued without prior notice to the media, that prohibited publication of the names of a minor victim and juvenile defendant in a case where the defendant had shot and killed his brother. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, granted the newspaper's petition for review and quashed the order. The court held that the order violated procedural due process because established precedent requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for representatives of the news media before any closure or gag order affecting press access or publication. The opinion emphasized that the media serves as a public surrogate in such matters and must be notified when closure issues arise.

free speechcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Thomas Connell appealing his conviction and sentence after a jury trial for sexual battery and lewd assault on a child under fourteen, his stepdaughter. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence because the trial court's four stated reasons for exceeding the sentencing guidelines were all invalid. The first and third reasons, concerning physical and psychological harm to the victims and accompanying fear and threats, were rejected based on controlling precedent. The second reason, involving the crimes occurring on multiple occasions over time, was not clear and convincing. The fourth reason, destruction of the family unit, was inherent in the convicted offenses and thus could not support departure. The matter was remanded for sentencing within the guidelines.

criminal law

In Revear v. State, the appellant appealed his sentence after the trial court revoked his probation. The appellate court affirmed both the revocation and the sentence but granted the request to correct the written revocation order. Although the trial court found violations only of probation conditions one and five at the hearing, the order had incorrectly listed violations of conditions two, five, and nine. The court held that a written revocation order must conform to the findings made during the revocation hearing, citing established precedent requiring such accuracy.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an employment contract dispute in which Twomey sued his former employer, James W. Gardner Corporation, for unpaid compensation. The trial court awarded Twomey contract damages but denied his request for attorney's fees under section 448.08, Florida Statutes. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the damages award, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The appellate court reversed the denial of attorney's fees, holding that an action for unpaid compensation under an employment contract qualifies as an action for unpaid wages eligible for fees to the prevailing party under the statute, consistent with its prior decision in Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall. The case was remanded solely for a hearing on the amount of attorney's fees.

labor & employment

In Weeks v. State, the appellant challenged the revocation of his probation for uttering a forged instrument and the resulting five-year prison sentence. After pleading guilty in 1978 and being placed on five years' probation, he was returned to North Carolina where he served 30 months in prison on a prior charge; the Florida court later found violations in 1984 and revoked probation. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the revocation and sentence, holding that the probationary period was tolled during the time the appellant was imprisoned out of state and thus not under Florida supervision, so the violations occurred within the probation term and the court retained jurisdiction. The court also noted errors in the sentencing process under the guidelines but found no need for resentencing since the maximum statutory sentence was imposed. The core reasoning relied on case law from other jurisdictions and simple logic regarding tolling when a probationer is not subject to supervision.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by John Simmons from a sentence imposed after his probation was revoked for violations including failure to report and committing new offenses like theft and forgery. The trial court had departed from the sentencing guidelines by imposing 15 years imprisonment, citing the probation violations and the timing after release from prior incarceration. The appellate court reversed, holding that the reasons provided did not justify a departure beyond one cell in the guidelines, as the probation violation alone supports only a one-cell increase and the timing reason was invalid given the over two-year gap. It remanded for resentencing within the presumptive range, which could include a one-cell upward departure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a trial court order revoking Marcus Harris's probation based on six alleged violations, including failure to pay supervision costs, theft, and four check forgery incidents. The appellate court reversed the revocation order, ruling that the trial court could not revoke probation for the four forgery violations because they were not charged in any affidavit or warrant filed in the record, as required by Florida statute. The court also found insufficient evidence for the cost payment violation and noted that the state had dropped the theft charge. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure