Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, the thirty-ninth pro se petition or notice he had filed with the court since 2006, and found that Petitioner has abused the court’s limited judicial resources.After dismissing Petitioner’s habeas petition, the court ordered Petitioner to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se documents in the court. Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order. Therefore, based on Petitioner’s extensive history of meritless pro se filings in the court, the Supreme Court directed the clerk of the court to reject any future pleadings or requests for relief submitted by Petitioner concerning a certain case unless such filings were signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. Additionally, the court found the petition filed in this case was a frivolous proceeding filed by a state prisoner. View "Kendrick v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, the thirty-ninth pro se petition or notice he had filed with the court since 2006, and found that Petitioner has abused the court’s limited judicial resources.After dismissing Petitioner’s habeas petition, the court ordered Petitioner to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se documents in the court. Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order. Therefore, based on Petitioner’s extensive history of meritless pro se filings in the court, the Supreme Court directed the clerk of the court to reject any future pleadings or requests for relief submitted by Petitioner concerning a certain case unless such filings were signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. Additionally, the court found the petition filed in this case was a frivolous proceeding filed by a state prisoner. View "Kendrick v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court’s decision in Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996), does not require a trial court to adhere strictly to the procedure as outlined in Melbourne and its progeny.Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced to four concurrent twenty-five year terms of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court’s ruling on his objections to the State’s exercise of two peremptory challenges of African-American venire persons. The Second District concluded that Defendant failed to preserve his claim. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Second District but not its analysis, holding (1) in the context of challenges to the use of a peremptory strike, the holding of Melbourne is reaffirmed, but when, as here, the Melbourne inquiry is incomplete or proceeds out of order, the reviewing court should focus on the opportunity provided to the opponent of the strike to be heard and make argument; and (2) Defendant preserved his challenge for appellate review, but the trial court did not err in overruling his objections. View "Spencer v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court’s decision in Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996), does not require a trial court to adhere strictly to the procedure as outlined in Melbourne and its progeny.Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced to four concurrent twenty-five year terms of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court’s ruling on his objections to the State’s exercise of two peremptory challenges of African-American venire persons. The Second District concluded that Defendant failed to preserve his claim. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Second District but not its analysis, holding (1) in the context of challenges to the use of a peremptory strike, the holding of Melbourne is reaffirmed, but when, as here, the Melbourne inquiry is incomplete or proceeds out of order, the reviewing court should focus on the opportunity provided to the opponent of the strike to be heard and make argument; and (2) Defendant preserved his challenge for appellate review, but the trial court did not err in overruling his objections. View "Spencer v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was serving a forty-year sentence for a nonhomicide crime that he committed when he was a juvenile, was entitled to be resentenced under the juvenile sentencing provisions of chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida.Defendant was fifteen years old when he committed the crime of attempted first-degree murder. Because Fla. Stat. 775.087 applied, the trial court classified the offense as a life felony and sentenced Defendant to life without parole. After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, which the trial court granted. Upon resentencing, a successor trial judge sentenced defendant to forty years’ imprisonment with a twenty-five year minimum mandatory sentence. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court held that Defendant, who was resentenced after Graham but before the Legislature passed chapter 2014-220, was entitled to resentencing where his sentence did not provide him an opportunity to obtain early release based on a demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation before the expiration of the imposed term. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was serving a forty-year sentence for a nonhomicide crime that he committed when he was a juvenile, was entitled to be resentenced under the juvenile sentencing provisions of chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida.Defendant was fifteen years old when he committed the crime of attempted first-degree murder. Because Fla. Stat. 775.087 applied, the trial court classified the offense as a life felony and sentenced Defendant to life without parole. After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, which the trial court granted. Upon resentencing, a successor trial judge sentenced defendant to forty years’ imprisonment with a twenty-five year minimum mandatory sentence. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court held that Defendant, who was resentenced after Graham but before the Legislature passed chapter 2014-220, was entitled to resentencing where his sentence did not provide him an opportunity to obtain early release based on a demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation before the expiration of the imposed term. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying William Gregory Thomas’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Thomas 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). Thomas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Thomas’s sentence of death became final in 1997. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Thomas’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Thomas’s motion. View "Thomas v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Robert J. Trease’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Trease 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). Trease was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Trease’s sentence of death became final in 2001. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Trease’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Trease’s motion. View "Trease v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Steven Richard Taylor’s motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Taylor 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). Taylor was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Taylor’s sentence of death became final in 1994. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Taylor’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Taylor’s motion. View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying William Earl Sweet’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Sweet 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). Sweet was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Sweet’s sentence of death became final in 1995. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Sweet’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Sweet’s motion. View "Sweet v. State" on Justia Law