Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders’ sentences of life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as delineated by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, 460 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 467 U.S. 460 (2012), and related cases, and therefore, such juvenile offenders are not entitled to resentencing under Fla. Stat. 921.1402.Appellee was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and related crimes he committed when he was sixteen years old. Appellee was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for the murder. Appellee later filed a motion for postconviction relief asserting that he was entitled to relief under Miller. The trial court summarily denied the motion, determining that Miller was inapplicable because Appellee had the opportunity for release on parole. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that resentencing was required. The Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District’s opinion, holding that juvenile offenders’ sentences of life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years do no violate Graham’s requirement that juvenile have a meaningful opportunity to receive parole. View "State v. Michel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Appellant’s intellectual disability (ID) claim, holding that Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), did not impact the denial of Appellant’s ID claim.On direct appeal in this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s ID claim. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court issued Moore, a decision potentially relevant to this case. The United States Supreme Court then vacated the Supreme Court’s decision and remanded to allow the Court to reconsider its decision on appeal. On remand, the Supreme Court held that Appellant failed to prove adaptive deficits by clear and convincing evidence - a conclusion that Moore did not alter. View "Wright v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the postconviction court dismissing the postconviction proceedings brought by Appellant, a prisoner under sentence of death, but not discharging counsel, holding that the postconviction court’s order was not erroneous.Appellant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual battery. The jury recommended sentence of death by a vote of seven to five, and the trial court imposed a sentence of death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to vacate judgments of conviction and sentence of death pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851. After concluding that Appellant sought to waive the postcondition proceedings, the postconviction court dismissed the postconviction motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Appellant’s waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and therefore, valid, and the postconviction court properly allowed Appellant to waive the instant proceedings while maintaining counsel. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

After denying Ronald K. Schiming’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as repetitive, the Supreme Court instructed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Schiming related to case number 481987CF005037000AOX, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Where Schiming had a persistent history of filing pro se petitions that were frivolous, meritless, or otherwise inappropriate for the Supreme Court’s review, the Court found that Schiming had abused the judicial process and burdened the Court’s limited judicial resources. View "Schiming v. Jones" on Justia Law

After denying Kenneth L. Shirah, Sr.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus the Supreme Court directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Shirah related to his criminal convictions in circuit court case number 301992CF000178XXAXMX unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, holding (1) the habeas petition in this case was facially insufficient; and (2) where this was Shirah’s fourteenth petition or notice pertaining to his convictions filed in the Court since 2000 and the eighth such petition to be dismissed as facially insufficient, and where Shirah’s filings indicate a lack of understanding of the appellate process and an unwillingness to gain an understanding of it, if not constrained, Shirah will continue to abuse the judicial process and burden the Court with frivolous and meritless pertaining to his criminal case. View "Shirah v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Appellant’s successive motion to vacate judgments of conviction, including one of first-degree murder, and sentence of death under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) and Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) were applicable to Appellant’s case, but the Hurst error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his Hurst-induced claim under Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), or his claim that he was entitled to application of chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida. View "Conahan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence of death after resentencing, holding that any error in Defendant’s resentencing did not taint the jury’s recommendation for death.Defendant was convicted for the 1990 first-degree murder of Donna Burnell. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death after the new penalty phase jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of twelve to zero. On appeal, Defendant raised several claims, including a Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 claim and a claim that his death sentence was disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s arguments either involved no errors or errors that were harmless and not prejudicial; and (2) the cumulative effect of any errors did not deprive Defendant of a fair penalty phase hearing. View "Lowe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order summarily denying Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Defendant was not entitled to Hurst relief, nor was he entitled to relief on his other claims.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of ten to two. The trial judge imposed a sentence of death. In his successive motion for postconviction relief, Appellant raised four claims based on Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant’s sentence became final prior to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), Appellant was not entitled to Hurst relief; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his other claims. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this criminal case, holding that the State was not entitled to the speedy trial rule’s recapture period in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191, where the State informed Defendant that it had terminated its prosecutorial efforts and failed to notify Defendant that new and different charges based on the same conduct were filed before the speedy trial period expired.The State charged Defendant with tampering with a witness and later dismissed the charges. After the speedy trial period expired, Defendant became aware of new charges based on the same conduct. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for discharge without allowing the State the opportunity to try Defendant within the recapture period. The Fourth District reversed, receding from its prior decisions requiring that the defendant be notified of the charges within the speedy trial period. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that, under the circumstances in this case, the trial court correctly denied the State the recapture period and discharged Defendant. View "Born-Suniaga v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order summarily denying Appellant’s third successive motion to vacate a sentence of death under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief as a matter of law.Appellant was convicted of murder and sexual assault and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on appeal. At issue in this appeal was the summary denial of Appellant’s third successive motion for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as a matter of law, Appellant was not entitled to relief, as the Court had previously addressed and rejected each of the claims presented, and Appellant did not provide a compelling argument for the Court to reconsider its previous rulings. View "Zack v. State" on Justia Law