664 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 839 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
Multiple improper prosecutorial comments and questions—including soliciting officer opinions on the initial aggressor, commenting on pre-arrest silence, vouching for police credibility, and mischaracterizing evidence—constituted reversible error in a case turning entirely on witn
-
The court held that the petitioner's prior state drug convictions qualified as 'serious drug offenses' under the ACCA, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge this classification. The court also found the indictment sufficiently stated the offense.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial, finding that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to the level of reversible error and that the indictment was sufficient. The court applied different standards of review for misconduct claims based on whether
-
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, the admission of DNA evidence, the handling of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, or the sufficiency of the evidence. The court also held that t
-
The trial court's judgment and sentences are affirmed, but the case is remanded to correct a clerical error in the judgment document.
-
-
A federal district court dismissed and denied a habeas corpus petition challenging a 2014 Florida conviction for burglary and theft, finding that petitioner Forbes exhausted only two of his four claims, that one unexhausted claim was not a substantial claim under the Martinez exc
-
Badi Burgos, a Florida prisoner convicted of felony murder and armed robbery, filed a federal habeas petition challenging his state conviction and sentence, raising claims about the trial court's failure to conduct hearings on his right to self-representation and discharge of cou
-
Al Burgess, a Florida prisoner sentenced to life for armed kidnapping and armed sexual battery, challenged his resentencing through federal habeas corpus, arguing his resentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to an upward departure sentence and by
-
The Court denies Ground 1 and dismisses Grounds 2 through 10 of the habeas petition, finding some claims unexhausted, others procedurally defaulted, and one cognizable only under state law.
-
When a trial court uses an incorrect sentencing scoresheet and imposes a sentence exceeding the guidelines range, the sentence is illegal and must be vacated for resentencing, even if the sentence falls within the statutory maximum, unless the record clearly demonstrates the tria
-
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, finding that a retrial after the vacatur of his conviction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court rejected the defendant's novel theories for lowering Delaware's intent requirement for prosecutoria
-
Esdras Cardona's federal habeas petition challenging his 2007 Florida conviction for sexual battery and burglary was dismissed in part and denied in part because his claim about inadequate hearings on newly discovered evidence raised only state law issues and his remaining ineffe
-
A sentencing court's reliance on an inaccurately calculated scoresheet constitutes reversible error when the imposed sentence exceeds the corrected scoresheet's recommendation and the record does not conclusively demonstrate the court would have imposed the same sentence under th
-
Tyshon Renford's federal habeas petition challenging his Florida state-court conviction for armed kidnapping, robbery with a firearm, and armed carjacking was dismissed as to one claim for failure to exhaust state remedies and denied as to two remaining claims on the merits. The
-
William St. Claire sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming constitutional violations at his trial for aggravated assault with a firearm, including denial of funds for a communications expert, improper exclusion of evidence regarding his reasons for visiting
-
The appellate court affirmed a life sentence for a juvenile offender convicted of murder, finding that the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing. The case involved resentencin
-
The court held that the ALJ's decision was insufficient because it failed to properly evaluate medical source opinions and adequately consider the claimant's mental impairments in the residual functional capacity determination.
-
Grand theft is a lesser-included offense of organized scheme to defraud, and when charged with identical dates and victims in the charging document, convictions for both violate double jeopardy; therefore, the grand theft convictions must be reversed based solely on examination o
-
Grand theft is a lesser-included offense of organized scheme to defraud, and when charged with identical dates and victims in the charging document, convictions for both violate double jeopardy; the double-jeopardy analysis is limited to the charging document and cannot consider
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim of insufficient evidence was procedurally defaulted and lacked merit, and that any Rehaif error was harmless on collateral review.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief, finding that his claims were procedurally barred under Rule 61. The defendant failed to demonstrate cause for not raising the issues on direct appeal, as sufficient evidence was available to his trial counsel. Fu
-
The court held that the ALJ properly considered the medical evidence and vocational expert testimony, and that the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence.
-
The appellate court reversed a defendant's sentence for the third time, holding that the lower court erred by failing to conduct a de novo sentencing proceeding as required by statute after previous reversals. The court also found that the defendant should be resentenced by a dif
-
Trial counsel did not render deficient performance by introducing a portion of Smith's interrogation containing references to lack of remorse, as it was a sound strategic decision to show detective misconduct; counsel was not deficient in stipulating to booking photographs with w
-
Raimundo Antonio Hogan was convicted of firearm possession by a convicted felon and sentenced to 180 months imprisonment; he challenged his conviction and sentence through a §2255 motion on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct regarding firearm s
-
Spouses Jennifer and Joseph Amison appealed convictions for financial crimes related to a charity fundraiser. The appellate court reversed some convictions due to double jeopardy violations and errors in restitution calculations, while affirming others.
-
The appellate court reviewed convictions for financial crimes against a married couple, the Amisons. The court reversed some convictions due to double jeopardy violations and errors in restitution calculations, while affirming others. The case highlights the importance of distinc
-
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed its prior decision and remanded the case for de novo resentencing of Puzio on first-degree murder counts. The supreme court had quashed the appellate court's decision to impose a ministerial co
-
The court held that the ALJ erred by failing to articulate the weight given to a treating physician's opinion, and this error was not harmless because the opinion conflicted with the ALJ's findings regarding the claimant's daily activities.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately explain the weight given to the opinions of examining psychologists and the child's teacher, requiring reversal and remand.
-
The appellate court affirmed the denial of Richard E. Kelly's motion to correct an illegal sentence. Kelly argued his life sentence for kidnapping was based on an erroneous sentencing scoresheet, but the court found any error to be harmless because the trial court could have impo
-
The court held that the ALJ's failure to assign weight to a treating physician's opinions and consider the full treatment history was not harmless error, and the Appeals Council erred in rejecting new evidence as not chronologically relevant.
-
The court held that the movant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged instructional error, and that his section 924(o) conviction was not solely based on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause of section 924(c).
-
The court held that while the petitioner was denied his right to a jury finding on a fact essential to his minimum mandatory sentence under Alleyne v. United States, this error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly established the fact, and therefore, relief under § 22
-
Although a defendant is entitled to a corrected scoresheet and cost orders when errors exist, resentencing is not required when the record conclusively shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have imposed identical sentences. The trial court's erroneous belief
-
The appellate court affirmed the defendant's sentences despite acknowledging errors in the scoresheet and costs order. The court found these errors to be harmless because the trial court indicated it would have imposed the same sentences even without the errors.
-
The appellate court affirmed most of the defendant's sentences but remanded for ministerial corrections to his scoresheet and costs order. The court found that despite sentencing errors, the defendant would have received the same sentences due to the severity of his crimes and pr
-
The appellate court reversed the denial of a postconviction motion, finding that an inaccurate sentencing scoresheet used in the appellant's plea agreement required resentencing. The court held that the "would-have-been-imposed" standard was misapplied by the lower court.
-
A prosecutor may robustly argue the truthfulness of a witness whose credibility is under attack, provided the prosecutor does not place the government's prestige behind the witness or indicate that extra-record information supports the testimony.
-
When a conviction is vacated and results in changes to a defendant's sentencing scoresheet, the defendant is entitled to resentencing with a corrected scoresheet. A trial court has discretion to impose a youthful offender sentence under section 958.04(1), Florida Statutes, notwit
-
Zachery Keith Turner, convicted of lewd and lascivious battery on a minor, filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and 15-year sentence on multiple grounds, including claims of competency-to-stand-trial error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and Crawf
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling the movant's objections and denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence.
-
The appellate court reversed a conviction for attempted manslaughter and aggravated assault, finding that the trial court committed fundamental error by omitting crucial language from the jury instruction on transferred intent. This omission prevented the jury from considering th
-
The appellate court held that an erroneous denial of a motion to disqualify a judge in a criminal case, when raised on direct appeal, should be reviewed for harmless error. The court found the error harmless in this specific case and affirmed the conviction, but certified a quest
-
The court held that the petitioner's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using a firearm during a Hobbs Act Robbery is valid, as Hobbs Act Robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause, and the petitioner's guilty plea established guilt for this predicate
-
A trial court errs and commits harmful error by allowing a jury to view new physical evidence of a defendant during deliberations, including a specific body positioning and facial profile not presented at trial, when the identity of the defendant is a central issue in the case.
-
The appellate court reversed a conviction for drug trafficking because the prosecutor misstated the law regarding the "knowledge" element of the offense during closing arguments. The court found this misstatement, which was not corrected by the trial court, was not harmless error
-
The appellate court reversed the denial of postconviction relief for one ground, finding that the trial court improperly sent a victim's videotaped interview to the jury room during deliberations. However, the court affirmed the denial of other grounds and remanded for further pr
-
Although a scoresheet error reducing the lowest permissible sentence by only two months may appear harmless, reversal and resentencing are required when the record does not conclusively show the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet.