Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, who was born in Nicaragua and entered the United States as a child, pleaded guilty to sale of a controlled substance, a second degree felony, in 2001. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky in 2010, Petitioner filed a postconviction motion alleging that his counsel failed to advise him that deportation was mandatory for the offense to which he pled guilty and that he would not have pled guilty if he had known that it would mandate his deportation without recourse. The circuit court denied Petitioner's motion on the basis that the immigration consequences warning included in the plea colloquy pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(c)(8) precluded Petitioner from establishing the requisite prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the denial of Petitioner's postconviction motion and then certified questions of law to the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) the immigration warning in Rule 3.172(c)(8) does not bar immigration-based ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on Padilla; and (2) however, the ruling in Padilla does not apply retroactively. Therefore, the Court approved of the Third District's decision upholding the denial of Petitioner's postconviction motion. View "Hernandez v. State" on Justia Law

In this negligence action, the Supreme Court considered whether an employee who claims the benefit of sovereign immunity pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.28(9), which entitles that employee not to be held personally liable in tort or named as a party defendant for acts within the scope of his or her employment, may obtain interlocutory review of an adverse trial court ruling where the question turns on an issue of law. The court of appeal declined to exercise certiorari review over a trial court's order denying summary judgment based on such a claim of individual immunity pursuant to section 768.28(9)(a). The Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's decision and held (1) a claim of individual immunity from suit under section 768.28(9)(a) should be appealable as a non-final order under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130, obviating the necessity of determining whether common law certiorari would alternatively be available; and (2) the employee in this case was entitled to the individual immunity provided in section 768.28(9)(a). View "Keck v. Eminisor" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death for the killing of Andrea Boyer, as well as a conviction for sexual battery by use of actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, vacated the sentence of death, and remanded for a new trial, holding that reversible error occurred in the guilt phase of the trial, when the State introduced a lengthy videotape of Appellant's custodial interrogation in which the investigating officers repeatedly expressed their personal opinions about Appellant's guilt and the victim's character and family life. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether an appellate court should review a non-final order denying a claim of sovereign immunity by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (Citizens), a state-created entity that provides property insurance, in a bad faith action stemming from the entity's handling of a property damage claim. The issue arose in the context of the broader question of when appellate courts should use common law writs to review non-final orders involving claims of immunity prior to the entry of a final judgment and when the Supreme Court should expand the list of non-final appealable orders. While the Court did not resolve the broader issue in this case, it determined that Citizens' claim of immunity was not reviewable by the appellate courts either through the writ of certiorari or the writ of prohibition, and the Court declined to expand the list of non-final orders reviewable on appeal to include the discrete legal issue presented in this case. View "Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed his first-degree murder conviction and sentence of death for the killing of Quatisha Maycock, as well as his convictions and sentences for related offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences, holding, among other things, (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress the statements he made to police officers, all post arrest / custody observations of Appellant made by police officers, and evidence seized from Appellant; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's two motions to disqualify; (3) the prosecutor's comments during closing argument and made during the State's penalty phase closing argument did not rise to the level of fundamental error; (4) the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support Appellant's convictions for burglary, child neglect, and attempted escape; (5) The trial court did not err by requiring Appellant to argue all of his nonstatutory mitigating evidence as a single mitigating factor; (6) the trial court did not err by allowing the State to introduce at Appellant's penalty phase trial evidence of his prior violent felony convictions; and (7) Appellant's sentence was proportionate to death sentences that the Court has upheld in other cases. View "Braddy v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was tried and convicted for the murder of a five-month-old. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence of death but remanded for resentencing on the aggravated child abuse conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence. The lower court denied Defendant's claims. Defendant then appealed, asserting that his counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the appeal. Thereafter, Defendant filed a successive motion to vacate judgment and sentence with special request for leave to amend, asserting that his counsel was ineffective. The circuit court summarily denied the motion and subsequent rehearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant's motion was untimely, the postconviction court properly summarily denied the motion; and (2) because Defendant did not address the merits of his claim on appeal, and because the postconviction court did not rule on the merits, the Court would not reach the merits of his claim. View "Lukehart v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for several crimes against four separate victims. Two of the victims - Iris White and Jackie McCahon - were murdered, while two were not. This appeal stemmed from Defendant's first-degree murder conviction and accompanying death sentence for the killing of Jackie McCahon. Defendant raised thirteen claim on direct appeal. The Supreme Court denied each of Defendant's claims, determined that the death penalty was proportional to Defendant's crime, and affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising sixteen claims. The postconviction court ultimately denied all of Defendant's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief from his conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder of McCahon. View "Johnson v. State " on Justia Law

Defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for several crimes against four separate victims. Two of the victims - Iris White and Jackie McCahon - were murdered, while two were not. This appeal stemmed from Defendant's first-degree murder conviction and accompanying death sentence for stabbing Iris White to death inside her home. The Supreme Court denied each of Defendant's claims on appeal, found the death penalty to be proportionally warranted, and affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising twenty claims. Ultimately, the postconviction court denied Defendant's postconviction motion in its entirety. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief from his conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder of White. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a minor. The court of appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial. At Petitioner's second trial, the trial court partially closed the courtroom during the testimony of the victim pursuant to Fla. Stat. 918.16(2), which provided for partial closure of the courtroom during the testimony of a victim of a sex offense upon the victim's request. Appellant was again convicted of the charges. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not denied his right to a public trial by the trial court's partial closure during the victim's testimony; and (2) a partial closure pursuant to section 918.16(2) acceptably embraces the requirements set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Waller v. Georgia. View "Kovaleski v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed an order of the circuit court denying his initial postconviction motion filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death. Defendant also petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the postconviction court's denial of relief as to Defendant's guilt phase claims; (2) reversed the denial of relief as to the penalty phase and remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding because counsel failed to fully investigate and present mitigating evidence regarding Defendant's childhood and mental health; and (3) denied Defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "Simmons v. State" on Justia Law