Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree and robbery with a weapon. The jury returned a unanimous recommendation that Petitioner be sentenced to death. The trial court found five aggravating factors and nineteen nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and sentenced Petitioner to death. In this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner argued that he was entitled to relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So, 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the Hurst violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Guardado v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Florida Supreme Court vacated Nelson Serrano’s four death sentences imposed after he was convicted for four counts of first-degree murder and remanded for a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40. Serrano had appealed the denial of his postconviction motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of Serrano’s guilt phase claims and denied his habeas petition. However, the court held that Serrano was entitled to relief under Hurst because the jury recommended death on all four murder counts by a vote of nine to three, and the error in Serrano’s sentencing was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Serrano v. State" on Justia Law

On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court vacated Barry Trynell Davis, Jr.’s two death sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40. Davis was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. After a penalty phase, a nonunanimous jury recommended two sentences of death. The Supreme Court held (1) the Hurst error in this case was not harmless; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Davis’s motion to suppress; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Davis’s prior possession of a revolver; (4) the trial court did not err in allowing the State to display, during closing argument, a photo of a witness crying on the witness stand; and (5) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

The Florida Supreme Court vacated David Beasher Snelgrove’s two death sentences and ordered that Snelgrove receive a new penalty phase proceeding based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. (2016) and this court’s decision in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). After a second penalty phase, the trial court followed the jury’s nonunanimous recommendation of death sentences for Defendant’s two murder convictions. Here, Snelgrove appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 and also petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The court affirmed the denial of Snelgrove’s rule 3.851 motion and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus but vacated his death sentences, holding that Hurst was applicable in this case and that the failure to require a unanimous jury recommendation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court remanded the cause for a new penalty phase. View "Snelgrove v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated or felony murder with a weapon and his sentence of death, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s challenges for cause against two prospective jurors; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the rebuttal testimony of the State’s mental health expert; (3) any error in the trial court's finding of the avoid arrest aggravator was harmless; (4) the State’s penalty phase evidence did not become an impermissible feature of the penalty phase; (5) the Hurst v. State error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (6) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction; and (7) the death sentence in this case was proportionate. View "Cozzie v. State" on Justia Law

On direct appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of first-degree murder but vacated his two sentences of death. The death sentences were imposed after a nonunanimous jury recommended sentences of death. The failure to require a unanimous verdict as to each death sentence was not harmless, thus entitling Defendant to a new penalty phase based on Hurst v. State. As to Defendant’s guilt phase claims, the court held that no prejudicial error occurred. In addition, the court held that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s first-degree murder convictions. The court remanded the case for a new penalty phase. View "Pasha v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Petitioner, whose sentence of death was recommended by his penalty phase jury after a vote of eleven to one, was entitled to relief under Hurst v. State and Hurst v. Florida. The Court granted Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus, vacated his death sentence, and remanded the matter to the circuit court for a new penalty phase, determining (1) Hurst applied retroactively to Petitioner, whose sentence became final four days after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ring v. Arizona; and (2) the Hurst error in Petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Card v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted John Lee Hampton’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, vacated Hampton’s sentence of death, and ordered that Hampton receive a new penalty phase proceeding in light of Hurst v. State. In addition, the Court affirmed the postconviction court’s order denying Hampton’s motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death to the extent it denied Hampton relief based upon his claim of ineffective assistance of guilt phase counsel and further affirmed the determination that Hampton was not intellectually disabled. The Court declined to address the remaining issues in Hampton’s appeal of the postconviction court’s order, which relate to penalty phase issues, due to its holding that the Hurst error during Hampton’s penalty phase proceedings was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Hampton v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted second-degree murder. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the convictions because the trial court “failed to instruct that [Defendant] could not be guilty of attempted manslaughter if the attempted killings were either justifiable or excusable homicide.” The court then certified the same question of great public importance that it previously certified in Moore v. State. The Supreme Court approved the holding of the First District and answered the certified question as follows: where the record reflects there was no evidence presented from which a jury could find justifiable or excusable attempted homicide, fundamental error occurs when the trial court fails to instruct on justifiable or excusable attempted homicide, and the defendant is convicted of attempted manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed. View "State v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of nine to three. The Supreme Court followed the recommendation and sentenced Defendant to death. Defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851. The circuit court denied the motion. Defendant appealed this denial and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel claims; and (2) Defendant’s death sentence violated Hurst v. State, and the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Altersberger v. State" on Justia Law