Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Michael Allen Griffin’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Griffin was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Griffin was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Griffin’s sentence of death became final in 1995. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Griffin’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Griffin’s motion. View "Griffin v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Samuel Jason Derrick’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Derrick was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Derrick was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Derrick’s sentence of death became final in 1995. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Derrick’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Derrick’s motion. View "Derrick v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Samuel Jason Derrick’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Derrick was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Derrick was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Derrick’s sentence of death became final in 1995. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Derrick’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Derrick’s motion. View "Derrick v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Floyd William Damren’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Damren was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Damren was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Damren’s sentence of death became final in 1998. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Damren’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Damren’s motion. View "Damren v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Floyd William Damren’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Damren was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Damren was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Damren’s sentence of death became final in 1998. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Damren’s sentence of death and, accordingly, affirmed the denial of Damren’s motion. View "Damren v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence Defendant received in connection with his guilty plea to two counts of first-degree felony murder. The district court imposed consecutive hard twenty-five life sentences, meaning that Defendant would not be eligible for parole for fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by refusing to run his sentences consecutive to each other. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that neither Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, his expression of remorse, or other considerations led to the conclusion that the district court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. View "State v. Brune" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence Defendant received in connection with his guilty plea to two counts of first-degree felony murder. The district court imposed consecutive hard twenty-five life sentences, meaning that Defendant would not be eligible for parole for fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by refusing to run his sentences consecutive to each other. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that neither Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, his expression of remorse, or other considerations led to the conclusion that the district court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. View "State v. Brune" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for resentencing, in which Defendant argued that Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), rendered his hard forty sentence unconstitutional.After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison with no possibility of parole for forty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence in 2007. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion for resentencing, asserting that his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Alleyne. The district court construed Defendant’s motion as a collateral challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to a sentence that was final when Alleyne was decided. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether Defendant’s pleading was construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence or a collateral attack under section 60-1507(b), Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne did not render his sentence unconstitutional. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for resentencing, in which Defendant argued that Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), rendered his hard forty sentence unconstitutional.After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison with no possibility of parole for forty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence in 2007. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion for resentencing, asserting that his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Alleyne. The district court construed Defendant’s motion as a collateral challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to a sentence that was final when Alleyne was decided. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether Defendant’s pleading was construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence or a collateral attack under section 60-1507(b), Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne did not render his sentence unconstitutional. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

Three masked individuals robbed a Milwaukee bank at gunpoint and fled with $4,737 in a Honda Civic with license plates 480-TNG. The next day, police stopped that vehicle; Anderson was the driver and sole occupant. When the officer approached, Anderson fled and was pursued at high speed until he crashed. A search of the Civic revealed a bag containing 39 individually-wrapped baggies of crack cocaine and a loaded 9mm pistol, plus red dye stains consistent with a dye pack planted with the stolen money to explode. Anderson was acquitted of armed robbery and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (bank robbery), but convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon, possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The court sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with a limited remand so that the district court can determine whether it would have imposed the sentence, knowing that it can consider the mandatory sentence. The court rejected Anderson’s argument that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when the proceedings continued after the courthouse closed. Anderson did not object to the continuation; anyone in the building before 5:00 p.m. could attend the entire trial and there were only minimal proceedings after 5:00 p.m. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law