Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted felony murder, and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s attempted felony murder convictions and affirmed Appellant’s conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death, holding (1) Appellant’s convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of attempted felony murder violated double jeopardy principles, but resentencing for the capital or noncapital convictions is not necessary; and (2) the remainder of Appellant’s claims did not entitle him to relief. View "Tundidor v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death on two counts for the first-degree premeditated murders of two police officers. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to strike the jury panel based on statements made by a prospective juror during jury selection; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a redacted statement statement while he was under observation in jail, and any error in preventing the defense from presenting evidence regarding Appellant’s mental state at the time he made the statement was harmless; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing law enforcement officers to give opinions identifying Appellant’s voice and image from a dash cam videotape; (4) the trial court did not err in admitting a witness’s prior consistent statements; (5) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial; and (6) competent, substantial evidence supported Appellant’s convictions. View "Morris v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and other offenses. The jury recommended by a vote of twelve to zero that Appellant be sentenced to death for the murder. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence on direct appeal. Appellant later filed a motion for postconviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing on two ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims related to Appellant’s alleged intellectual disability, the circuit court denied postconviction relief. The court also denied Appellant’s first and second successive postconviction motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s intellectual disability claim; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief under Hurst v. State. View "Rodriguez v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Donald Lenneth Banks was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two. Following the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced Banks to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Banks’ conviction and sentence. Thereafter, Banks filed a motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 to vacate his murder conviction and sentence of death, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied the motion. Banks appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Banks’ postconviction guilt phase claims, denied his habeas petition, but vacated his death sentence, holding (1) trial court provided effective assistance of counsel; but (2) Banks’ death sentence violated Hurst v. State, and the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new penalty phase. View "Banks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated and felony murder. The jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of ten to two. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the death sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not err by admitting, for purposes of impeachment, collateral crime evidence that Defendant signed a sworn statement in which he admitted to concealing a metal shank inside his pants while in jail awaiting trial for the victim’s murder; (2) the State did not improperly comment on Defendant’s right to silence; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction; but (4) Defendant’s death sentence violated Hurst v. State, and the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new penalty phase. View "Brookins v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to armed burglary of a dwelling, armed kidnapping, attempted first-degree murder, and sexual battery using force or a weapon. Petitioner was sentenced to six concurrent life sentences. Petitioner’s sentences were based on offenses he committed when he was seventeen years old. After the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Graham v. Florida, the trial court set aside Petitioner’s life sentences and, after an evidentiary hearing, resentenced Petitioner to 100 years in prison for the first count and forty years on each remaining count, to run concurrently. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner’s sentence, concluding that Graham does not apply to term-of-years sentences. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fifth District, holding that Petitioner’s 100-year sentence violates Graham and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Henry v. State and Kelsey v. State. Remanded. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude witness testimony about the identity of the substances found at the scene of his arrest and the results from the chemical field tests performed on those substances, arguing that the witnesses were not qualified to testify as expert witnesses. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the officer who performed the chemical field tests and identified the methaphetamine was sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert witness. Petitioner then entered an open plea of no contest to charges of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, and possession of a listed chemical, reserving his right to appeal the ruling on the motion in limine, which the State agreed was dispositive of the case. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the challenged evidence failed to comply with the standard for admissibility in Daubert. The Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the trial court’s order was not dispositive and therefore could not be challenged on direct appeal. The Supreme Court quashed the Fifth District’s decision, holding that, in appeals from conditional no contest pleas, stipulations of dispositiveness are binding on the appellate court. Remanded. View "Churchill v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled nolo contendere to three counts of sexual battery of child under the age of twelve by a person under the age of eighteen and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation. The trial court imposed costs for each of the four convictions, resulting in costs of $603 pursuant to Fla. Stat. 938.08, $453 pursuant to Fla. Stat. 938.085, and $404 pursuant to Fla. Stat. 938.10(1). Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in assessing the costs per count, instead of per case. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Fifth District, holding that sections 938.085, 938.08, or 938.(1) require an imposition of costs per count. View "McNeil v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and of attempted second-degree murder. The trial court, following the jury’s recommendation, sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, raising multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase and claiming that he was entitled to relief after the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the guilt phase claims but vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v. State, holding that where the jury recommended death by a vote of ten to ten, the error in Appellant’s sentencing was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "McMillian v. State" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with attempted first-degree premeditated murder. The State did not charge or allege the elements of attempted felony murder in the charging document. During trial, the State pursued an attempted felony murder theory. Defendant objected to the State’s proffered jury instruction on attempted felony murder, but the trial court overruled the objection. During closing argument, the State argued both the attempted premeditated murder theory and attempted felony murder. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the attempted first-degree murder counts. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding (1) because the statutory crime of attempted felony murder is a crime separate from attempted premeditated murder, the State must charge the crime of attempted felony murder in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on that crime and proceed under that theory; and (2) the State’s failure to properly charge Defendant with the crimes that it was pursuing was unconstitutional and a violation of Defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him. View "Weatherspoon v. State" on Justia Law