The case concerned a defendant's challenge to his convictions for attempted burglary of a dwelling and resisting an officer without violence after he was apprehended with certain items shortly following an incident in which a perpetrator entered a home through an open window but took nothing. The appellate court reversed the attempted burglary conviction, finding that the trial court had erred by admitting evidence of a duffle bag and its contents along with items found on the defendant, because no connection was shown between those items and the charged crime. It affirmed the resisting arrest conviction on the basis that the evidentiary error was harmless with respect to that charge. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a judgment of acquittal was required.
The case involved an uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance claim by Robin Curran against State Farm after she was injured in a traffic accident and settled with the underinsured driver. State Farm sought to schedule a compulsory medical examination under the policy terms but the parties exchanged letters with objections over the doctor, location, timing, and a requested waiver of future exams; Curran did not attend the scheduled exam and filed suit. The court held that Curran breached the policy by failing to attend the exam and suing before compliance, but this breach did not bar coverage because State Farm suffered no prejudice. The decision affirmed the $100,000 judgment for Curran based on the lack of prejudice to the insurer despite the contractual violation.
In Payne v. State, the appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle based on a 2004 drive-by shooting, with identification primarily from a witness whose prior statements had contradicted the trial testimony and other evidence that included potential bias from a state witness. After an initial denial of postconviction relief was reversed for an evidentiary hearing, the trial court again denied claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call certain witnesses and newly discovered evidence including a recantation by another participant. The appellate court reversed, holding that counsel's deficient performance in omitting available testimony was prejudicial and that the recanted testimony, when viewed in totality with the trial record and other evidence, was sufficiently reliable to warrant a new trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involves an appeal from a collateral attack on a 2008 foreclosure judgment, where the appellants' counsel sought to withdraw their representation after over a year. The court considered motions from multiple attorneys, including a notice that failed to request permission or state reasons, and another citing vague "irreconcilable differences" without proper service. The court denied the motions to withdraw because they did not comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.440(b), the reasons were insufficient given the advanced stage of the appeal, and no further withdrawal requests would be entertained as a merits decision is imminent.
In Marshall v. State, the defendant was convicted of charges stemming from a drive-by shooting in which the victim identified him as the driver who shot at the victim. The defendant appealed after the trial court prevented him from impeaching the victim with a prior inconsistent statement made to the prosecutor, ruling that the prosecutor's testimony about the statement would be inadmissible hearsay. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible for impeachment purposes and is not hearsay because it is not offered for its truth. The court found the issue was preserved despite the lack of a formal proffer of the prosecutor's testimony and concluded the error was not harmless given that the case rested primarily on the victim's identification amid other inconsistencies in his account.
This case arose from an appeal challenging the trial court's dismissal of one count in a multi-count complaint, which the appellate court affirmed per curiam without opinion after determining the pleading defects could not be cured. In response, the appellant's counsel filed a motion for rehearing or certification to the supreme court that included emotional statements, lacked record citations, made unsupported factual assertions, and failed to identify overlooked facts, legal conflicts, or certifiable issues. The appellees moved for sanctions based on the motion's impropriety. The court denied the motions and entered an order directing the appellant's counsel to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and section 57.105, Florida Statutes, for violating rules governing rehearing motions and professional conduct.