Carole Taylor

In Rowell v. State, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm and his resulting conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The appellate court reversed, holding that the warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment violated the Fourth Amendment. Officers responded to a shots-fired call, detained the defendant outside the building, and entered his third-floor apartment without a warrant to conduct a protective sweep after the door was found open, discovering the gun on a counter. The entry was not justified by exigent circumstances because the scene was secured with a perimeter and time existed to obtain a warrant, nor by the protective sweep doctrine because officers lacked a reasonable belief that anyone inside posed a danger. The inevitable discovery exception also did not apply, as police made no showing they were actively pursuing a warrant, and the girlfriend's later consent was tainted by the prior illegal search.

criminal lawprocedure

Kate Peacock was charged with drug possession offenses and accepted a plea deal for a sentence of one year and one day in prison. After pleading no contest, she requested and received a furlough but failed to appear for sentencing because she was hospitalized following a suicide attempt. The trial court imposed a three-year prison sentence, finding her failure to appear willful despite her mental health history. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the state failed to prove the failure to appear was willful and that the original negotiated sentence must be reinstated.

criminal lawprocedure

Bernard William Reynolds was convicted of selling cocaine after a jury trial in which a buyer identified as Valente could not identify Reynolds in court and no direct exchange of drugs or money was observed. Reynolds appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the admission of a police officer's testimony that his leaning into a car was consistent with a drug transaction. The court affirmed the denial of acquittal, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction. However, it reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the officer's testimony about general criminal behavior was inadmissible to prove guilt and that the error was not harmless because the other evidence of the defendant's involvement was limited.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John Dorsey appealing his convictions for two counts of second degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and carrying a concealed firearm, which arose from a confrontation and shooting at a high school party. The appellate court affirmed the weapons convictions but reversed the second degree murder convictions after finding the evidence insufficient to show an act imminently dangerous to another evincing a depraved mind, as it instead established an impulsive overreaction to an attack that supported only manslaughter. The court also held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions on the justifiable use of deadly force and the duty to retreat under the Stand Your Ground law given the defendant's unlawful activity, and remanded for a new trial on manslaughter charges.

criminal lawguns

Ivan Santiago appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine, a lesser-included offense of trafficking in cocaine, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and in admitting Williams rule evidence of a prior drug sale at the same residence two weeks earlier. The evidence included testimony about the defendant's sale of crack cocaine to an undercover officer, his use of the nickname "Snow," and possession of a gun, which matched details from the search warrant execution where cocaine packages labeled "Snow" and a gun were found hidden in the home. The trial court admitted the prior incident evidence due to unique similarities and denied the acquittal motion, finding sufficient evidence of constructive possession through incriminating circumstances. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the Williams rule evidence was relevant to establish knowledge and control over the drugs and that its admission did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

criminal law

This case involves the dissolution of a marriage between Jodie C. Bell and Mitchell K. Bell, with disputes over the equitable distribution of assets including business interests in Precision Time Systems and Royce, loans receivable from related entities, an inherited home, and a Ford Explorer, as well as the denial of bridge-the-gap alimony and attorney’s fees. The wife appealed the trial court’s calculations and lack of findings on alimony, while the husband cross-appealed the inclusion of nonmarital assets in the distribution. The appellate court reversed and remanded on the equalization payment, alimony findings, inherited home equity, and vehicle valuation, but affirmed the decision not to reserve jurisdiction on attorney’s fees. The reasoning centered on statutory classifications of nonmarital property under section 61.075, evidence that the home proceeds and car were nonmarital or nonexistent at dissolution, and the need for specific factual findings on alimony.

family lawproperty

This case involves a shareholder's lawsuit, filed individually and derivatively, against Florida Gamco, Inc. and its officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty through misappropriation of funds and other corporate misconduct, as well as claims of slander and libel. The defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to transfer venue from Broward County to Leon County. The appellate court reversed, ruling that venue was improper in Broward because all defendants reside in Leon County, the corporation's principal place of business and office are in Leon County, and all alleged acts or statements occurred there. The plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that Broward was a proper venue for any of the claims, as she conceded the relevant events took place in Leon County and provided no contrary evidence. The court therefore ordered the case transferred to Leon County.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by the parents of a three-year-old child against several healthcare providers, alleging failure to timely diagnose and treat meningitis, resulting in permanent injuries. The trial court dismissed the claims against some defendants with prejudice due to the plaintiff's counsel's repeated failures to comply with discovery requests, court orders, and scheduled hearings, and later denied motions to set aside that dismissal as well as a summary judgment in favor of other defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of relief from the summary judgment, finding no abuse of discretion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1). However, it reversed the dismissal order because the trial court had not expressly analyzed the Kozel factors before imposing dismissal as a sanction and remanded for written findings on those factors.

proceduretorts & liability

In Vardaman v. State, the defendant appealed the revocation of his probation, which stemmed from a new arrest on drug charges, and the resulting 30-year prison sentences imposed after he rejected a plea offer. The court affirmed the revocation because it found no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence from the new arrest. However, it reversed the sentences, holding that the totality of circumstances—including the trial court's participation in plea negotiations, comments suggesting the defendant was "rolling the dice" by proceeding to a hearing, the large disparity between the offered eight-year term and the 30-year sentences, and the absence of other justifying factors—created an unrebutted presumption of judicial vindictiveness. The case was remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a judgment creditor, Caproc Third Avenue, LLC, seeking to enforce a final judgment against a debtor through a writ of garnishment on the debtor's personal bank accounts. The debtor filed an affidavit claiming exemptions under Florida's head of household wages exception pursuant to section 222.12, Florida Statutes, asserting he provided support for dependents and met other criteria. In response, the creditor's attorney submitted an affidavit denying the exemption, but the trial court struck it as legally insufficient because the statute requires the denial to be made under oath by the party who obtained the writ, not by an attorney lacking personal knowledge. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution of the writ, applying the statute's plain language that mandates denial by the suing party itself within two business days.

procedure

The case involved Corey Jermaine Potts appealing his conviction for burglary of a dwelling after being found guilty based on fingerprint evidence found at the scene. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that it was error to allow the fingerprint examiner to testify that his identification had been verified by another examiner from a different agency, as this improperly bolstered the testimony. The court relied on prior decisions finding such references to non-testifying experts inadmissible. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, finding the fingerprint evidence on the point of entry, combined with testimony that the defendant had no permission to enter, sufficient to submit the case to the jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Fabian Moncrieffe's appeal of his conviction for escape under section 944.40, Florida Statutes, after he fled while in the custody of the Lauderhill Police Department. The court reversed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence failed to establish a valid arrest or lawful custody at the time of the alleged escape. The defendant had been initially detained and arrested by Sunrise police officers for loitering and prowling based on items found in his possession, then transferred to Lauderhill officers investigating a sexual battery in their jurisdiction. However, the Lauderhill officers lacked authority to take custody outside their jurisdiction without a warrant or fresh pursuit, rendering the custody unlawful for purposes of an escape charge. The court remanded with directions for discharge on the escape count.

criminal law

This case involved a class action lawsuit by Florida property owners against the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. and David Stern, alleging violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act based on the firm's transmission of mortgage reinstatement letters that demanded allegedly unreasonable or excessive fees for service of process, title searches, attorney services, and other charges. The trial court certified the class after finding that the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) were satisfied, including commonality, typicality, and predominance of common issues over individual ones, as the law firm's practices were uniform across class members. The court distinguished the claims as arising from the demands in the letters rather than their outcomes and noted tools available to manage any individualized damages. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the certification order, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the class met the procedural standards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case consolidated appeals from two DUI defendants who sought to suppress evidence of their refusal to take a breath test after arrest, claiming they were entitled to consult an attorney first based on their own mistaken belief. The court addressed whether Florida's "confusion doctrine" applies to suppress such refusals when police did not cause or correct the defendants' misunderstanding about the right to counsel. The court answered that question in the negative, holding that the doctrine does not apply where the confusion stems solely from the defendant's own error rather than any action or omission by law enforcement. It therefore affirmed the denial of suppression in Kurecka's case and the resulting conviction, while reversing the suppression order in Power's case. The decision emphasized that the implied consent statute imposes no affirmative duty on officers to advise suspects they have no right to an attorney before testing.

criminal lawprocedure

Tyrone Blash was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder after evidence showed he bound, stabbed, and attempted to burn the victim and his home using accelerants like paint thinner and bubble wrap. On appeal, Blash challenged the admission of photographs and testimony about the accelerants as irrelevant and prejudicial, and the denial of a mistrial after a witness referenced his "New York case." The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the accelerant evidence corroborated Blash's out-of-court confession and was consistent with the crime scene, with its probative value not outweighed by prejudice. It also found the mistrial motion properly denied because the isolated reference occurred during defense cross-examination and was not egregious enough to require a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a former employee suing her employer for unpaid wages under Florida's Minimum Wage Act, after which the employer obtained summary judgment on the ground that the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for wage actions. The trial court awarded costs but denied the employer's request for attorney's fees under section 448.08, reasoning that a victory based on the statute of limitations defense was different from a decision on the merits. The appellate court reversed that denial, explaining that section 448.08 permits fees for the prevailing party without distinguishing between merits-based and limitations-based outcomes, and that precedent had previously approved such fee awards to employers who prevailed on statute-of-limitations grounds. The court therefore remanded the case for the trial court to exercise its discretion under the correct legal standard.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Kenneth Johnson, who was convicted of two counts of lewd or lascivious battery based on a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl. Johnson appealed, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence that the victim had twice attempted suicide after the relationship was revealed and he was arrested. The appellate court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that any probative value of the suicide attempt evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court further reasoned that the error was not harmless because the state had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence did not contribute to the verdict, as it was elicited from multiple witnesses and referenced in closing argument. The decision focused on evidentiary rules under Florida law regarding relevance and prejudice in criminal trials.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from probate litigation between two sisters over their mother's estate, specifically the enforcement of a 2007 settlement agreement requiring the estate's personal representative (Carlin) to provide medical records and a HIPAA release to Javorek. The trial court found that Carlin breached the agreement by failing to provide the release but ruled the breach non-material, substantial compliance occurred, and each party should bear her own attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of fees to Carlin, holding that Paragraph Eleven of the agreement governed disputes over medical records and releases. It reversed on Javorek's cross-appeal, concluding that the breach was material and that Javorek was entitled to fees both as the prevailing party under Paragraph Two and under the special remedy in Paragraph Eleven for compelling compliance.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Dustin Williams, who was seventeen years old when he accidentally shot and killed his best friend with a loaded firearm stolen the previous day from a deputy's vehicle; he was convicted of manslaughter and grand theft of a firearm after the trial court denied a motion to sever the charges and a motion for judgment of acquittal. The appellate court found competent substantial evidence supported the manslaughter conviction, citing the defendant's consumption of alcohol as establishing culpable negligence. It reversed the convictions and remanded for separate trials, however, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever the charges because evidence of the collateral theft offense was presumptively harmful and likely contaminated the jury's consideration of the manslaughter count.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In Latos v. State, the appellant entered a general no-contest plea to charges of sale or delivery of oxycodone, trafficking in oxycodone based on the same 4.2 grams sold to an undercover officer, and firearm possession by a felon. The appellate court held that the dual convictions for sale/delivery and trafficking violated double jeopardy because the trafficking statute, as applied to the facts, included the sale conduct for the identical quantity of the drug. It reversed only the sale/delivery conviction and sentence, remanding for discharge on that count, while affirming the trafficking conviction, after confirming the claim could be raised on appeal from an open plea as it was apparent from the record and unwaived.

criminal lawprocedure