Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the kidnapping, capital sexual battery, and first-degree murder of an eleven-year-old girl. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death for the murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, presenting several claims. The postconviction court summarily denied all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that criminal defense counsel should have unlimited authority to conduct interviews to probe jurors for possible misconduct was without merit; (2) the postconviction court properly denied Appellant’s claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding its role; (3) the postconviction court did not err when it held that Florida’s capital sentencing statute is not unconstitutional; and (4) Appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Florida’s lethal injection procedures was without merit. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

In Sirota v. State, the court of appeal certified a question to the Supreme Court regarding the scope and proper application of the Court’s decision in Morgan v. State. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Alcorn v. State, wherein the Court receded from Morgan with respect to the standard for establishing prejudice as to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in which the defendant rejected a plea offer based on misadvice. After Alcorn became final, the Court issued an order directing the defendant below to show cause why the Court should not summarily quash the court of appeal’s decision in Sirota and remand for reconsideration in light of Alcorn. After the parties responded, the Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal’s decision in Sirota and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s decision in Alcorn. View "State v. Sirota" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of Monquell Wimberly. Appellant was also convicted of the first-degree felony murder of Patrick Stafford, for which Stafford was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentence of death, holding (1) there was no fundamental error in the admission of a videotaped statement Appellant gave to detectives after he was taken into custody; (2) there was no prejudicial error in the admission of a codefendant’s out-of-court statement; (3) the admission of testimony concerning an eyewitness’s fear of the shoot did not constitute fundamental error; (4) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claim of juror misconduct or premature deliberation; and (5) competent, substantial evidence supported the verdict of guilt as to the first-degree murder conviction and the felony murder conviction. View "Sheppard v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed carjacking. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising twenty-eight claims. After an evidentiary hearing on several of those claims, the circuit court denied relief. Appellant appealed, raising twenty-one claims, and also filed a habeas petition raising two claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the postconviction court’s order denying relief on all postconviction claims, holding that Appellant failed to establish that any errors occurred which, either individually or cumulatively, would entitle him to a new trial; and (2) denied relief on both claims Appellant raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, as both claims were procedurally barred. View "Deparvine v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of a law enforcement officer, which occurred after the officer stopped Appellant for a traffic infraction. The jury recommended that the death penalty be imposed, and the circuit court sentenced Appellant to death. Appellant filed an amended motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court below denied the motion in a final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to satisfy the Washington v. Strickland standard in the postconviction proceeding held below. View "Bailey v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, a prisoner under a sentence of death for whom a death warrant had been signed, filed a successive motion for postconviction relief raising an as-applied challenge to Florida’s lethal injection protocol based on his allegation that he suffers from the medical condition porphyria. The circuit court denied Appellant’s claim without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant appealed and produced an affidavit by a physician stating that, in the physician’s expert medical opinion, a substantial risk existed that the use of midazolam hydrochloride as the first drug of Florida’s lethal injection protocol would cause Appellant “extreme or excruciating pain.” In light of these allegations, the Supreme Court relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Appellant’s claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that Florida’s lethal injection protocol, as applied to him, violated the Eighth Amendment because he did not show that allegedly suffering from porphyria creates a “substantial risk of serious harm” upon the injection of midazolam. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted after a jury trial for the first-degree murders of an elderly couple, whom he cut and stabbed. Sentences of death were imposed for both murders, but the case returned to the circuit court. After a new penalty phase, Appellant was sentenced to death for only one murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's sentence of death. Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court concluded that Appellant was entitled to a new penalty phase trial. The Supreme Court reinstated Appellant's sentence of death, holding that Appellant was not entitled to any relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington standard. View "State v. Woodel" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with drug trafficking and possession after the vehicle he was driving was stopped by a deputy sheriff who had noticed an inconsistency between the actual color of the vehicle and the color indicated on the vehicle’s registration. Defendant moved to suppress the results of the stop as products of an unlawful, warrantless search. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the vehicle was legally stopped for investigative purposes and that the odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to conduct a search. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The district court reversed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that a color discrepancy alone does not provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a color discrepancy, standing alone, does not justify initiating a stop to determine if the law has been violated. View "State v. Teamer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Richard England was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to death. England later filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied relief on all claims. Petitioner appealed and petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that the postconviction did not err in concluding that counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance during both the guilt phase and penalty phase of trial. The Court also denied habeas relief, holding that England failed to establish that appellate counsel was ineffective, and the remainder of his claims were procedurally barred or without merit. View "England v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and related crimes. The jury recommended that Appellant be sentenced to death, and the judge followed the jury’s recommendation. On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s death sentence based on the cumulative effect of errors made during the penalty phase of the trial. Following a new penalty phase, the trial court again sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s imposition of the death penalty on resentencing, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State’s strikes of two African American venirepersons; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce the severed fingertip of one of the victims into the new penalty phase; (3) the prosecutor engaged in improper arguments, but the errors were harmless; and (4) the death sentence in this case was appropriate. View "Poole v. State" on Justia Law