Craig Villanti

The case involved Susan Farrell appealing a trial court's post-dissolution order that denied her motion for attorney's fees incurred while defending against her former husband's contempt and sanctions motion. At an evidentiary hearing on the fees motion, the former wife could not finish presenting her case and the former husband presented none of his evidence, yet the trial court sua sponte denied the motion before the scheduled continuation hearing. The appellate court reversed and remanded, reasoning that the failure to allow parties to fully present evidence violated due process and required reversal.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dependency proceeding for sixteen-year-old G.S. after his mother C.T. was arrested in Florida on a California warrant, leaving no caregiver available. The mother consented to the dependency finding but challenged the Department of Children and Family Services' case plan, which required her to complete domestic violence evaluation, parenting classes, and prescription drug monitoring—tasks she had already finished in prior California proceedings. The trial court accepted the full case plan, partly to mirror requirements for the father. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the dependency adjudication but reversed acceptance of the case plan, holding that under sections 39.6011, 39.6012, and 39.603, Florida Statutes, tasks must be tailored to the specific facts causing the dependency, here the mother's arrest and extradition rather than unrelated issues. The court remanded for an amended case plan addressing only those circumstances.

family law

In State v. Kotecki, the State appealed a trial court's dismissal of a charge of unlawful sexual activity with a minor, which had been transferred from Manatee County to Sarasota County at the defendant's request before dismissal on venue grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant had waived any right to trial in Manatee County by electing the transfer under Article I, section 16(a) of the Florida Constitution, which permits alternative county allegations when the exact location is uncertain due to equivocal testimony. The court further reasoned that the civil venue statute limiting second transfers did not apply to criminal cases and that transfer, not dismissal, is the preferred remedy for venue issues, with waiver occurring upon a defendant's venue election as confirmed by statute and precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

In Norwood v. State, the appellant challenged a postconviction court's order vacating all orders it had entered on his motion for postconviction relief after an appellate mandate was inadvertently issued while a motion for rehearing remained pending. The court affirmed the vacating order, holding that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to act on the motion while rehearing was still pending in the appellate court. However, because Norwood had amended one claim to make it facially sufficient in reliance on the postconviction court's erroneous orders, the court remanded with directions for the postconviction court to consider the merits of that claim under the unique circumstances of the case.

criminal lawprocedure

In Carter v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft after being seen removing a TV from a victim's home. The court affirmed the burglary conviction but reduced the grand theft conviction to petit theft. The core reasoning was that while the evidence established a theft occurred, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the TV's value met or exceeded $300 as required for third-degree grand theft under Florida law. Specifically, the victim's testimony about monthly payments on a plan provided no information on original cost, market value at the time of the offense, condition, depreciation, or other required factors for establishing value. The case was remanded for resentencing on the reduced charge.

criminal law

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida sought certiorari review after a trial court denied its motion for summary judgment in an eminent domain action brought by the Department of Environmental Protection to acquire three parcels of land in Collier County for an Everglades restoration project. The Tribe argued that sovereign immunity and the federal Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177, barred the taking of land it had purchased in fee simple on the open market. The court denied the petition, holding that the trial court’s ruling did not depart from the essential requirements of the law. The core reasoning was that an eminent domain proceeding is an in rem action against the property itself, to which sovereign immunity does not apply, and that the Nonintercourse Act protections do not extend to land acquired by a tribe in fee simple after it had been freely alienable and held by private parties.

propertyfederal powerenvironmentprocedure

In this Florida foreclosure case, Gulf View Townhomes, LLC, moved for summary judgment against Land Development Services, Inc., asserting that the original promissory note was not in evidence and filing an affidavit from its manager claiming no indebtedness, despite prior admissions in pleadings and a settlement agreement that the note and mortgage existed and had been delivered. The trial court granted the motion and entered a final judgment that also discharged the mortgage entirely, even though that relief had not been requested in the motion or at the hearing. The appellate court reversed, holding that the affidavit was legally insufficient to support summary judgment and that awarding unrequested relief violated due process because it deprived the opposing party of notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The court remanded for further proceedings.

procedureproperty

This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action filed by Branch Banking and Trust Company against James D. Bryson for missed payments starting in February 2008. Bryson admitted the default but raised an affirmative defense that the bank failed to provide the notice to cure required by paragraph 22 of the mortgage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank based on unauthenticated default letters filed in the record. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the bank had not met its burden to refute the affirmative defense with competent evidence, as the letters were not attached to any affidavit and could not be considered self-authenticating for summary judgment purposes.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the Brocks' right to use a boat slip in a marina owned by the Orozcos. The Orozcos filed suit in 2009 seeking to eject the Brocks, arguing that the Brocks' permission expired with the prior owners' submerged land lease. The Brocks defended on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel based on a 2001 lawsuit that had upheld their use of the slip. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Orozcos, but the appellate court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the affirmative defenses and that the trial court's decision rested on an incorrect factual premise about when the lease interest arose.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Daniel Brian Emmert's appeal from the summary denial of three claims in his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief after his convictions for armed burglary, arson, and burning to defraud. The court affirmed the denial of claims one and seven without discussion but reversed on claim 8(b), which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate inconsistencies in a state witness's pretrial statements that hindered cross-examination. The postconviction court had denied that claim as facially insufficient because it did not specify the inconsistencies, without first allowing Emmert an opportunity to amend. The appellate court held that this denial violated the rule from Spera v. State requiring at least one chance to amend a facially insufficient postconviction claim before summary denial, and remanded for the court to strike the claim and permit amendment if possible in good faith within thirty days.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Harold Tirado challenging the revocation of his community control after the trial court found he violated two conditions: committing new law violations (condition five) and failing to abide by curfew (condition twelve). The appellate court affirmed the revocation based on the violation of condition five, as it was supported by the greater weight of the evidence showing a willful and substantial violation that Tirado conceded. However, it remanded with instructions to strike the finding on condition twelve because no evidence established a willful and substantial violation of curfew, while noting that the trial court would have revoked community control based solely on the first violation.

criminal lawprocedure

Jeffrey Lee appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence in two cases where he had originally been sentenced as a youthful offender to probation for possession of cocaine, driving with a suspended license, and fleeing to elude. The trial court revoked probation after finding violations based on new offenses, but the appellate court determined that two of those findings lacked proper evidentiary support—one relying solely on hearsay and another on an uncharged offense—while other findings were supported by competent evidence. The court affirmed the revocation but remanded for a corrected order deleting the improper grounds, and it reversed the sentence because the trial court improperly declined to maintain Lee's youthful offender status, which must continue upon revocation, remanding for resentencing as a youthful offender.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Bradley Jackson appealed from a final judgment of involuntary civil commitment as a sexually violent predator after a jury verdict, contending that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of his conditional release contract with the Florida Parole Commission. The appellate court reversed the commitment order and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion in limine. The core reasoning was that the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator under section 394.912 requires proof that the person is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility, so evidence of less restrictive alternatives such as the terms of the conditional release contract was relevant for the jury to consider in assessing the need for secure confinement versus outpatient treatment and public protection.

criminal lawprocedure

In Doe v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions and sentences for five counts of attempted robbery with a firearm through an Anders appeal that preserved sentencing issues. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences without further comment. It remanded the case, however, for the trial court to strike a duplicative $40 Indigent Criminal Defense Fee that had been imposed twice under section 27.52, Florida Statutes, once in the final judgment and again in a separate judgment. The court reasoned that the fee is assessed per application for court-appointed counsel and the record showed only one such application.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves James Hammond's appeal from the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief after he entered an open guilty plea to attempted first-degree murder and received a sentence of eighteen years in prison followed by twelve years of probation. Hammond raised four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including failure to investigate a potential self-defense witness and failure to advise him that self-defense was a viable defense, along with claims that counsel misled him about possible sentences from an open plea. The postconviction court denied all claims as procedurally barred because similar issues had been addressed in prior hearings on his motion to withdraw the plea and motion to mitigate the sentence. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the sentencing-related claims as they had already been litigated and decided on the merits but reversed the denial of the self-defense claims, determining they presented new issues not previously considered, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In this dissolution of marriage case, the wife challenged the trial court's award of $6,370 monthly permanent alimony and its 50/50 allocation of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses. The court reversed and remanded on both issues, holding that the expense allocation must follow the 23.95%/76.05% child support percentages established in the final judgment absent a contrary rationale, consistent with section 61.30(8), Florida Statutes, and controlling precedent. On alimony, the court found the award inconsistent with the evidence of the parties' affluent marital lifestyle, the wife's monthly needs, and the experts' calculations, which ranged from $8,370 to $16,368 after adjustments, and directed the trial court to set an amount within that range on remand while permitting updated evidence.

family law

The case involved Alicia Arce's lawsuit against her attorneys, Raymond A. Haas and related entities, alleging legal malpractice in their defense of her in a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident. The attorneys had been retained by Arce's insurer, GEICO, and the malpractice claim centered on events surrounding an alleged settlement agreement that resulted in a $450,000 stipulated judgment against Arce. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of the attorneys, concluding that no legal malpractice had occurred. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that disputed issues of material fact existed regarding the scope of the settlement agreement and the timing of events, which the trial court was not permitted to resolve at the summary judgment stage, and that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard by weighing the evidence.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a defendant whose probation revocation had been reversed on appeal, requiring reinstatement of his original withhold of adjudication and probation sentence on remand. After the defendant filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct the trial court's failure to fully comply with the appellate mandate, the trial court orally granted relief within the extended time limit but did not render the written amended judgment and sentence until after the appellate court's February 18, 2010 deadline had expired. The court held that the late-filed amended judgment and sentence were a nullity because the trial court lacked jurisdiction once the relinquished period ended without further extension. It therefore reversed the amended documents and remanded for their proper reentry at a time when jurisdiction existed, without requiring the defendant's presence. The core reasoning was that strict adherence to the time limits set by the appellate court is required for orders on such motions to have legal effect.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Marion Wallace appealing the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Melba Wallace, challenging the trial court's determinations on the wife's income, the unequal distribution of assets and liabilities, and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution of marriage but reversed the remainder of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The core reasoning is that controlling statutory and case law requires the trial court to make specific findings supported by competent substantial evidence on income, to identify classify value and distribute assets and liabilities with justification for any unequal distribution, and to determine reasonable hours and hourly rates for fees.

family law

In Manuel v. State, the defendant, who was thirteen years old at the time of the offenses, appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging his sentences of life imprisonment without parole for robbery with a firearm and attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, arguing that they violated the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment for a juvenile offender convicted of nonhomicide crimes. The postconviction court denied the motion under existing law, but during the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Graham v. Florida holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits life-without-parole sentences for juveniles who commit nonhomicide offenses. Based on Graham, the court vacated the life sentences and remanded for resentencing, while noting that a concurrent forty-year sentence for one attempted murder conviction remained unaffected.

criminal law