56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,495 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the prosecutor's reliance on an unadmitted exhibit during closing argument constituted reversible misconduct, warranting vacating the conviction on that count.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the Felonies Clause, and that the Felonies Clause is not limited by international law.
-
A warrantless search of a probationer's home, otherwise reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, is not rendered unreasonable by the presence of a non-probationer occupant who is aware of the probationer's status.
-
309 So. 3d 244·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2020-11-06
·cited 1×
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for resisting an officer without violence, despite potential insufficiency of evidence, because the defense counsel conceded the defendant's guilt during closing arguments. This concession was deemed "invited error," preventing the defend
-
The court granted in part the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, finding insufficient factual allegations and causation, and granted in part the motion to strike affirmative defenses, treating some as denials and dismissing others with leave to replead.
-
Pretrial detention is mandated because the defendant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of being a flight risk and a danger to the community, and the government presented sufficient independent evidence to support these findings.
-
-
The court held that referring a vehicle to secondary inspection based on nervous behavior and visually inspecting the vehicle's undercarriage during a routine checkpoint stop do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the jury instructions on venue were erroneous, they did not constitute plain error because the evidence was sufficient to establish venue in Maine under either the defendant's or the informant's version of events. The court al
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances did not provide reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop of the defendant's vehicle, rendering the subsequent search unlawful.
-
The court held that the co-defendant's statements exculpating the defendant were admissible under the statement against interest exception to hearsay, Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3). The exclusion of these statements was not harmless error.
-
The court held that prosecutorial statements about perjury, the trial court's reading of testimony, and a transcription error did not constitute reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the destruction of marijuana evidence did not violate due process absent a showing of bad faith, and that expert testimony regarding defendants' roles in a drug transaction did not violate Fed.R.Evid. 704(b) by impermissibly stating an opinion on mental state.
-
The court held that the government's explanation for the delay in sealing wiretap recordings was objectively reasonable, and the jury instructions and evidence were sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the term 'cocaine base' in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) is not limited to 'crack' and encompasses other smokable, non-water-soluble forms of cocaine base. The substance in question, being smokable and chemically similar to crack, fa
-
The court held that the district court did not err in quashing the subpoena for police records or in denying the motion to suppress evidence, as the traffic stop was objectively permissible and consent to search was voluntary.
-
The court held that a defendant who breaches a plea agreement and is subsequently convicted after trial is not entitled to the protections against vindictive sentencing afforded by North Carolina v. Pearce, as no presumption of vindictiveness arises in such circumstances.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, and his subsequent consent to search was voluntary.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a hearsay message, excluding evidence under Rule 403, controlling the order of testimony, proving venue, or denying a Speedy Trial Act claim.
-
The court held that the search of the garage was within the scope of the warrant under Texas law, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the account book for sentencing.
-
The court denied the defendant's motions for a new trial, to withdraw his guilty plea, and for a sentence reduction, finding the alleged newly discovered evidence was known to the defendant and his attorneys at the time of the plea.
-
Non-retroactive statutory amendments to sentencing law cannot constitute, as a matter of law, an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Sentencing Commission's policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), to the exte
-
The court held that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referencing an unadmitted exhibit in closing arguments, warranting a new trial on that count, but affirmed the convictions on other counts.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that a search warrant for a single address was sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment, even though the address contained multiple unmarked apartments, because the officers conducted a reasonable investigation and did not know or have reason t
-
Any error in empaneling an anonymous jury was harmless, and the district court did not err in refusing a multiple-conspiracies instruction or in considering acquitted conduct at sentencing.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's sentence, holding that the district court did not commit plain error by relying on its own experience and common sense regarding the deadliness of illegal drugs during sentencing.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior state drug convictions, even though they were Alford pleas, because they were relevant to intent and not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are meritless and procedurally barred, and his motion to amend is untimely.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-01-18
The court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred by the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prior convictions.
-
The court held that the movant's challenge to his § 924(c) and (o) convictions based on United States v. Davis is not jurisdictional and is subject to procedural default, and that the movant cannot establish cause and prejudice or actual innocence to excuse the default.
-
The court held that while there were plain errors in the indictment and guilty plea acceptance regarding the knowledge-of-status element, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that these errors affected his substantial rights or had a serious effect on judicial proceedings.
-
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 the petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted and without merit, and therefore denied his motion to vacate his sentence.
-
252 So. 3d 413·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2018-08-24
The state failed to prove constructive or actual possession of marijuana found on gas station property where evidence showed only that the defendant dropped unidentifiable objects in the general vicinity of where marijuana was later found, without testimony, physical evidence, or
-
The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment, finding the Maritime Drug Enforcement Act (MDLEA) constitutional as applied and statutory jurisdiction established.
-
51 So. 3d 600·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2011-01-07
Rashad Lee appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him that the evidence was insufficient to establish intent to sell cocaine. The court reverses and remands on the ineffective assistance claim, f
-
21 So. 3d 865·
Fla. 3d DCA·
2009-10-21
Conviction for possession with intent to sell cocaine near a child care facility reversed and reduced to simple possession because the trial court omitted the essential "intent to sell" element from the jury instruction, though the imposed sentence was permissible for simple poss
-
19 So. 3d 435·
Fla. 3d DCA·
2009-09-30
The State conceded that double jeopardy principles prohibit convictions for both trafficking in cocaine and possession with intent to sell the same cocaine, so the court reversed the lesser conviction and vacated it while affirming the trafficking conviction.
-
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report, denying the motion to suppress physical evidence and granting it in part for statements made in response to questioning about injuries, while denying suppression for other statements.
-
The court held that the collective knowledge doctrine allowed imputation of probable cause to the officer who stopped the defendant's vehicle, validating the search.
-
The court held that the indictment was sufficient, venue was proper, the vessel was subject to U.S. jurisdiction, the relevant statutes were constitutional, and the determination of jurisdiction was a question of law for the court, not the jury.
-
A defendant convicted of a narcotics offense may satisfy the "safety valve" criteria, including truthfully disclosing information about the offense, even if they maintain their innocence and the jury found they had knowledge of the narcotics.
-
The court held that even if evidence was obtained unconstitutionally, it should not be suppressed because the arresting officer acted lawfully under the law of the jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, and suppression would not deter future misconduct.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction for knowing and intentional participation in a drug smuggling operation, as mere presence on the vessel was not enough.
-
The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and severance under Rule 14 was not warranted, as potential prejudice could be cured by jury instructions and redactions.
-
The court held that a handgun seized from a vehicle within the curtilage of a residence, and cash seized from another vehicle, should be suppressed because their incriminating nature was not immediately apparent and they were not listed in the search warrant. However, evidence se
-
675 So. 2d 1043·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1996-07-03
-
638 So. 2d 997·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1994-06-15
The court affirmed Bryant's conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, relying on the parallel decision in Jean v. State involving the same drug raid.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that a Border Patrol agent's observations of a vehicle and its driver, including nervousness and appearance, did not constitute probable cause for a stop, even if they provided reasonable suspicion.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions but vacated his sentences and remanded for resentencing because the upward adjustment for a leadership role was not supported by sufficient reliable evidence.