Martha Warner

In this case, Xavier Chariot appealed his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, arguing that the trial court should have granted a motion for judgment of acquittal because the weapon was not concealed and that the court erred by failing to hold a Faretta hearing. The defendant had opposed his counsel's request for a continuance to file a motion to suppress or locate a witness, choosing instead to proceed to trial immediately. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the state presented sufficient evidence on concealment to create a jury question. On the Faretta issue, the court reasoned that the defendant never sought to represent himself, so no Faretta inquiry was required, and the trial court's colloquy adequately confirmed that his opposition to the continuance was knowing and intelligent, consistent with precedents like Curtis v. State and Boyd v. State.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brown v. State, the appellant, convicted of burglary and grand theft, challenged only the grand theft conviction on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to show he possessed the stolen jewelry and cash and that the state failed to prove the specific values of the items. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient under a circumstantial evidence standard because the victim identified the appellant leaving the ransacked unit, the appellant fled the scene, and this was inconsistent with his defense theory. The court further held that the claim regarding proof of the jewelry's value was not preserved for appeal, as it was not raised in the motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Smith v. State, the appellant sought to vacate his 1986 conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver through a postconviction motion, asserting that neither counsel nor the court had advised him during the plea hearing that the conviction could trigger deportation proceedings, which began in 2010, and that he would not have pled guilty if so informed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion. The decision rested on three grounds: the motion was filed outside the two-year time limit established in State v. Green for claims involving potential deportation; the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, which recognized ineffective assistance claims based on deportation advice, does not apply retroactively under Florida precedent; and the appellant's separate firearm conviction could independently render him deportable under federal law, so the drug conviction was not shown to be the sole basis for removal proceedings.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a mother's appeal of a final judgment terminating her parental rights to her child S.A. The mother argued that termination was not the least restrictive means of protecting the child because the court had not terminated her rights to the child's half-siblings. The appellate court affirmed the termination, holding that each child's circumstances must be assessed individually under the least restrictive means test. Here, the mother had made no progress on her case plan, had no contact with S.A. for over a year, and was out of state, while the half-siblings remained in a stable placement with their father who was also caring for S.A. The court found termination appropriate to achieve permanency for S.A. based on these distinct facts.

family law

In this case, a petitioner filed a mandamus petition in circuit court to enforce a public records request under section 119.11, Florida Statutes, but no hearing was set after eight months despite an order for response. The appellate court granted the petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to schedule an immediate hearing as required by the statute. The court reasoned that the statute mandates an immediate hearing with priority over other cases, and eight months delay does not satisfy that requirement, imposing a ministerial duty on the trial court.

procedure

In Smith v. State, the appellant was convicted of organized scheme to defraud after a joint trial with a co-defendant, during which the jury was instructed that the state must prove the defendants 'and/or' engaged in a scheme to defraud and obtained property through it. Smith appealed, arguing that the 'and/or' conjunction in the elements instruction constituted fundamental error because it potentially allowed the jury to convict him based solely on the co-defendant's actions. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Smith waived the claim by affirmatively requesting the 'and/or' language and that, under the totality of the circumstances, no fundamental error occurred. The core reasoning was that the trial court also gave standard instructions on multiple defendants and principals, the parties' closing arguments repeatedly emphasized separate consideration of each defendant, and separate verdict forms were used, ensuring the jury did not misapply the law.

criminal lawprocedure

Louis Lopez appealed his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault, burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery, two counts of attempted felony murder, and shooting a deadly missile at a vehicle. He challenged the trial court's denial of a for-cause strike against a juror who expressed concern about the reasonable doubt standard and claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an out-of-court identification. The appellate court found that the juror's statements did not demonstrate bias or partiality that would prevent rendering a verdict based on the evidence and instructions. It further held that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. The court affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Dr. Allan Dinnerstein and his professional association were entitled to sovereign immunity under a 2005 volunteer health care provider contract with the Florida Department of Health pursuant to the Access to Health Care Act, section 766.1115, Florida Statutes, in connection with the treatment of patient Ludana Prophete at Bethesda Memorial Hospital in March 2007. The trial court granted summary judgment declaring the doctor immune from a related medical malpractice suit brought by Prophete's estate, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the doctor was acting under the volunteer contract when treating the patient, who had self-referred or been sent by clinic staff without a formal Patient Referral Form DH 1032, and whether the emergency treatment provisions excused the lack of referral within the required timeframe based on the patient's mental capacity to consent.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case involved beneficiaries of a revocable trust challenging pre-death distributions and expenditures made by the trustee and the settlor's attorney-in-fact, alleging that some were not authorized under the trust terms for the settlor's support and welfare. The trial court had granted summary judgment, ruling that the beneficiaries lacked standing to contest the actions because the trust was revocable during the settlor's lifetime. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that under New York law governing the trust, the beneficiaries had standing after the settlor's death to challenge withdrawals outside the trust's purposes that were not approved by the settlor. The court reasoned that the trustee's discretionary authority was not unlimited and required an evidentiary hearing to assess whether the expenditures constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, remanding the case for further proceedings on that issue while affirming other aspects of the lower court's rulings.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

Kason Meme was convicted of cocaine possession following a traffic stop in which an officer saw him reach toward the floorboard, smelled marijuana, obtained consent to search, and found a tube of cocaine under the seat in that area; Meme and a passenger denied the movement and any knowledge of the drugs. He appealed the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, claiming insufficient evidence of actual or constructive possession. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the totality of circumstantial evidence—including the observed furtive movement to the exact location of the contraband, nervousness, and incriminating statements—supported a finding of constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt, even accounting for multiple occupants and a minor factual error by the trial court.

criminal law

The case involved two residents of a condominium building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where Daniel Jacobs petitioned for an injunction for protection against repeat violence after altercations with Sandy Levy on January 28, 2010. Jacobs alleged two separate incidents of violence—one outside the building near the valet stand and another inside the lobby about five to seven minutes later—and the trial court granted the injunction after an evidentiary hearing. Levy appealed, arguing that the events formed a single continuous incident rather than two qualifying acts under the statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that competent substantial evidence supported the finding of two separate incidents because they occurred in different locations and were separated by a sufficient temporal break allowing for a new intent.

criminal law

In Bates v. State, the appellant pled guilty to a first-degree felony of organized scheme to defraud involving over $200,000 stolen from her employer, along with five counts of grand theft, and received a 27-year prison sentence. She filed a motion for postconviction relief claiming that defense counsel and the trial court had misadvised her regarding the maximum possible sentence, which she argued entitled her to withdraw her plea. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion without a hearing, holding that a reconstructed plea colloquy—prepared during her direct appeal and not objected to by her at the time—demonstrated she had been correctly advised of the maximum penalties of 30 years for the first-degree felony and 5 years for the lesser felonies. This record conclusively refuted her claims under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).

criminal lawprocedure

In Henderson v. State, the appellant appealed his battery conviction, arguing that the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument by noting that no one had taken the stand to contradict the state's case. The court recognized that this remark violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, as it drew attention to his decision not to testify. Despite finding the comment improper and a potential burden-shifting error, the court applied the harmless error standard and concluded the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction on all issues raised.

criminal lawprocedure

In Griffin v. State, the appellant entered a no-contest plea to charges including trafficking in oxycodone, possession of an electronic weapon by a felon, introducing or possessing contraband in a detention facility, and multiple drug possession counts arising from contraband found in his sock at a county jail intake. After the plea, a double jeopardy concern was raised because the simple possession counts were lesser included offenses of the contraband charge under section 951.22, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea but vacated the adjudication on the contraband count entirely, then imposed sentences on the remaining counts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that completely vacating the greater offense removed any double jeopardy violation, as withholding adjudication would not have sufficed and the remedy was available following an open plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, George Roberts was charged with multiple counts of lewd and lascivious molestation of his daughter, based on her testimony along with similar fact evidence from another daughter and a friend; the defense presented denials and expert testimony finding no physical evidence of abuse. During jury deliberations, a juror sent a note stating that her eleven-year-old son would attend the same middle school as the victims and that the case felt "too close to home," prompting defense counsel to request a mistrial or at least an inquiry into potential bias, but the trial court declined to question any jurors and allowed deliberations to continue until guilty verdicts were returned on three counts. The appellate court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct any inquiry into the non-frivolous suggestion of juror bias, which was required to protect the defendant's right to an impartial jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the state appealing the dismissal of an information charging Wright with attempted delivery of cocaine under Florida law. The trial court had granted Wright's motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) based on undisputed facts showing he drove a co-defendant to a location where the co-defendant arranged a drug sale, with no drugs found on Wright or in his vehicle. The appellate court reversed and remanded to reinstate the charges, determining that the state presented a prima facie case because Wright's statement to police that he was giving the co-defendant a ride to conduct a narcotics transaction supported an inference that Wright knowingly aided and abetted the attempted delivery. The court explained that a defendant can be convicted of sale or delivery of drugs by aiding and abetting even without possessing the drugs himself, and the state may rely on inferences from circumstantial evidence to defeat such a motion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved franchisees who sued their licensor for breach of contract and fraud after issues with the ice cream product formula. After the lawsuit began, the licensor posted statements on its website accusing the franchisees of trademark violations and selling counterfeit products, leading the franchisees to add a defamation claim. The trial court dismissed the defamation claim, finding the statements protected by the litigation privilege due to their relation to the ongoing lawsuit. The appellate court reversed, holding that website publications to the public are not covered by the absolute immunity of the litigation privilege, as they are not made in connection with judicial proceedings or to participants therein.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a Florida broker suing a Mexican corporation for breach of an oral contract to pay a commission on the sale of an airplane. The trial court denied the corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient contacts because the broker was in Florida and received some materials there. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that these facts did not establish minimum contacts with Florida to support personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant. The court reasoned that the corporation had no business operations or assets in Florida, the sale occurred in Canada to Canadian buyers, and the broker was not retained to perform services in Florida.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs challenging the City of Sunrise's collection of excessive building permit and inspection fees, which were placed in the general fund rather than refunded or used as required by section 553.80, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the practice violated the statute along with restitution of excess fees, and they appealed the trial court's denial of class certification. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that class action status was unnecessary because a successful declaratory judgment for the named plaintiffs would uniformly benefit all similarly situated parties by requiring the City to comply with the statute's options for handling excess funds. The court reasoned that the statute grants the City discretion in remedying excesses, making individual class representation redundant for obtaining relief, consistent with precedents on the effects of declaratory or injunctive rulings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a nursery owner challenging Palm Beach County's enforcement of pre-existing zoning ordinances and special permit conditions on his agricultural operations, claiming they were preempted by Florida's Right to Farm Act and that agricultural uses were excluded from the definition of development under Chapter 163. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County, concluding the Act did not bar enforcement of ordinances predating its restrictions, the permit requirements did not limit farming operations, and the County retained authority under its home rule powers. On appeal, the court affirmed that the Right to Farm Act permits enforcement of existing ordinances and that Chapter 163 does not preempt local regulation of agricultural uses, but reversed in part because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the special permit setbacks and conditions restricted farm operations.

business & regulatoryproperty