Hal P. Dekle

The case involved petitioners charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny who requested a jury instruction on the lesser offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny, which the trial court denied; they were convicted and sentenced to fifteen years. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision upholding the convictions, holding that refusal of the instruction was not error. The court's reasoning centered on Brown v. State categories for lesser included offenses, which require both that the accusatory pleading allege all elements of the lesser offense and that evidence at trial support it; here neither applied for petit larceny, and the court further observed that any error would have been harmless given overwhelming proof of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation dispute in which claimant's attorney sought fees after the employer, the State Department of Transportation, accepted a permanent total disability rating following the attorney's investigation into the claimant's psychiatric condition. The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded $8,000 in fees based on findings that the employer's acceptance was untimely and resulted from the attorney's work product, but the Industrial Relations Commission reversed, concluding there was insufficient evidence linking the attorney's efforts to the outcome. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Commission's order and reinstated the fee award, holding that the Commission had improperly substituted its judgment for the JIC's findings, which were supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The decision applied the certiorari standard of review from Scholastic Systems, emphasizing that appellate bodies cannot overturn trial-level findings supported by the evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case addressed a procedural question under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a) regarding whether a plaintiff must file a reply to deny an affirmative defense or if such a defense is automatically deemed denied. Moore Meats challenged a trial court's denial of judgment on the pleadings after the plaintiff did not reply to the defendant's affirmative defense of illegality of contract. The Supreme Court of Florida held that a reply is required only when the plaintiff seeks to avoid the affirmative defense by asserting new matter, such as waiver or estoppel; otherwise, no reply is needed and the defense is treated as denied. The court distinguished its prior decision in Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Ferguson and relied on the rule's text, which limits replies to instances of avoidance, as well as commentary from rules expert Henry P. Trawick. The writ of certiorari was discharged, allowing the case to proceed on the existing pleadings.

procedure

This case involved whether a Florida circuit judge must accept written pleas of not guilty filed by defense counsel under Rules 3.160(a), 3.170(a), and 3.180(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The relators, a public defender representing indigent defendants charged with felonies, sought a writ of mandamus after the judge declined to accept the written pleas without court approval, contending that acceptance was discretionary to maintain orderly case management. The Supreme Court of Florida interpreted the rules as expressly allowing counsel to file written not guilty pleas, which waive arraignment, without requiring explicit court permission, as the plain language does not impose such a condition unlike other plea types, and the rules aim to expedite proceedings. The court noted that judges retain inherent administrative discretion to apply reasonable, consistently applied procedures for these pleas, provided they do not arbitrarily deny the option. The writ of mandamus was denied because the record did not clearly show a plain legal duty to accept the pleas in this instance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over child custody following the dissolution of marriage between Nancy M. Anderson and James Robert Anderson, where the trial court awarded custody of the couple's two-and-a-half-year-old twin daughters to the father along with the marital home, based on findings that both parents were fit but the father could better maintain the children's accustomed lifestyle and financial support without disruption. The mother challenged the custody award on appeal, arguing conflict with prior Florida decisions applying the tender years doctrine favoring maternal custody for young children when other factors were equal. The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed those precedents, acknowledged that moral and spiritual influences should take precedence over purely financial considerations in custody decisions, and noted that courts must ensure support payments address any imbalances rather than defaulting to the more affluent parent. Ultimately, the court discharged the writ of certiorari, upholding the trial court's discretion because the overall evidence supported awarding custody to the father without a clear abuse of authority.

family law

The case involved a petition for writ of mandamus by Steven Alan Segal, who sought credit toward his 1968 robbery sentence for time served in jail or on other sentences, including while awaiting trial on unrelated charges and during periods of parole revocation. The Florida Supreme Court held that the prisoner was entitled to credit time served on his later 1-year and 9-year sentences toward completion of the original 5-year sentence to allow him to serve his sentences consecutively in one continuous stretch rather than in bits and pieces. The court based its ruling on prior precedents such as State v. Coleman, which require that a prisoner pay his debt to society in a single period, and directed the Department of Corrections to recompute the sentences accordingly while noting uncertainties due to missing sentencing and parole revocation orders. The decision also specified conditions for concurrent versus consecutive sentences and gain time credits under Florida statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a petition for mandamus to compel the Florida Secretary of State to accept qualifying papers for candidates seeking election to a vacancy on the Florida Supreme Court created by a justice's upcoming resignation effective January 1975 due to mandatory retirement age. The court held that a vacancy occurs upon the tender of an unconditional resignation, even if effective in the future, allowing the position to be filled through the electoral process after an initial gubernatorial appointment as provided in the state constitution. The reasoning centered on the 1968 Florida Constitution's definition of vacancy in Article X, Section 3 upon resignation, combined with provisions in Article V, Sections 10 and 11 for filling judicial vacancies. The court rejected arguments that no vacancy existed until the resignation's effective date and that only appointment without election applied, distinguishing prior precedents under the older constitution.

electionsprocedure

In Sullivan v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and robbery, along with a death sentence, from the Dade County circuit court. The primary issue on appeal was whether a witness's mention of having taken a polygraph test as part of a plea agreement created reversible error, even though polygraph results are generally inadmissible. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, reasoning that the single ambiguous reference did not clearly inform the jury that the test had been taken, the witness's credibility had not been seriously undermined, substantial other evidence supported guilt, and defense counsel declined the trial court's offer of a curative instruction. The court strongly criticized the prosecutor's deliberate elicitation of the polygraph reference but found no basis for reversal under the specific facts.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the probate of Mary H. Beakes' will by her grandson, who argued that the will was invalid due to undue influence, lack of capacity, and improper execution because the witnesses did not know it was a will. The trial court revoked the probate on execution grounds, but the district court reversed, and the Florida Supreme Court agreed, holding that Florida statutes do not require witnesses to be aware that the document is a will. The court reasoned that the relevant statute, Fla. Stat. § 731.07, does not mandate publication of the will to the witnesses, overruling prior precedent to the contrary.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a challenge to a Lantana town ordinance that made it unlawful for any person to publish or circulate a charge or attack against a candidate in the seven days before an election unless the charge had been personally served on the candidate at least seven days earlier. Respondent was convicted in municipal court for violating the ordinance, but the circuit court and district court of appeal held it unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the ordinance violates Article I, Sections 4 and 9 of the Florida Constitution and the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the ordinance impermissibly restricts protected speech and press by barring even true statements during the period when political discussion is most vital, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mills v. Alabama that struck down a similar statute.

free speechelections

The case concerned the Florida Supreme Court's authority to review orders of the Industrial Relations Commission in workers' compensation proceedings. The court held that review is discretionary and limited to the traditional certiorari standard of whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law, rather than a mandatory full appellate review. It reasoned that the state constitution expressly makes such review permissive, that due process is satisfied by the administrative hearing and IRC review, and that access to courts is preserved through the availability of certiorari to enforce legal compliance.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by an independent candidate to a Florida statute (F.S. § 99.152) requiring 5% of registered voters' signatures (174,373) for ballot access in statewide elections, which the appellant claimed violated equal protection and due process by being unreasonably burdensome and discriminatory compared to the 3% requirement for minority-party candidates. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most provisions, recognizing the state's interest in maintaining manageable ballots as supported by U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Jenness v. Fortson. However, it found the 5%-versus-3% distinction arbitrary and lacking a reasonable basis, modifying the independent-candidate requirement to 3% while affirming the judgment with that change. Other challenges regarding costs and verification fees were deemed moot due to statutory alternatives like affidavits of inability to pay.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a lawsuit by a commercial grower of ornamental plants against a herbicide manufacturer and an aerial application company, claiming that negligent preparation and spraying of a 2,4D herbicide damaged the grower's caladium crop and reduced yields. The trial court ruled that while the application was negligent and contacted some plants, the plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the negligence proximately caused the alleged crop damage, and damages evidence was speculative. The Florida Supreme Court held that the district court improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court's factual findings, which were supported by competent evidence, and therefore quashed the reversal and reinstated the trial court's judgment for the defendants.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved whether a defendant's acquittal on a robbery charge, granted due to a variance between the date in the bill of particulars (November 24) and the proof at trial (November 26), barred a subsequent prosecution for the same incident on the correct date under double jeopardy principles. The Florida Supreme Court held that it did not, quashing the district court's affirmance of the trial court's dismissal of the second information charging robbery and displaying a firearm. The core reasoning was that the defendant was estopped from claiming double jeopardy because he had successfully argued in the first proceeding that the date was material and created a fatal variance, making the offenses distinct under the narrowed informations; the bill of particulars limited proof to the specified date, so the acquittal applied only to an offense on November 24.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action by Southern Bank against property owned by Ohio Realty Investment Corp., culminating in a judicial sale that occurred nearly three hours after the advertised time of 11:00 A.M. After the trial court denied motions to vacate the sale and the district court affirmed, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the matter on certiorari, also addressing an award of appellate attorney's fees. The Court held that the sale should be vacated and the property resold upon proper notice because the significant deviation from the noticed time, combined with the clerk's erroneous assurance to the owner's counsel that the sale would not proceed due to a pending appeal filing (with no supersedeas bond posted), undermined the integrity of the judicial sale process intended to attract bidders and achieve fair market value. The Court further ruled that the contractual provisions for attorney's fees in the mortgage and note did not authorize fees on appeal absent clear language to that effect, reversing the district court's fee award on that basis.

propertyprocedure

In Rodriguez v. State, petitioners were convicted of aiding and assisting in conducting a lottery based in part on evidence obtained from wiretaps authorized by court order. The Florida Supreme Court held that the affidavit supporting the wiretap order was insufficient to establish probable cause because it relied on stale information showing only past offenses rather than ongoing or imminent criminal activity. Additionally, the court found that the wiretap was not conducted in a manner that minimized the interception of non-pertinent conversations as required by statute, leading to the suppression of all wiretap evidence. As a result, the convictions were reversed and the charges dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barber, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed a district court decision that had reversed the convictions of two defendants for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny after finding insufficient evidence on the value of stolen property, even though defense counsel had not preserved the issue through motions at trial. The defendants argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to make those motions. The Court held that the sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed on direct appeal without a prior trial court motion, and claims of inadequate representation cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal but must instead be pursued through a post-conviction Rule 1 proceeding. It reversed the district court's approach as conflicting with prior precedents on appellate review and the proper handling of such claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned an action by an insured to reform an insurance contract on the ground of mutual mistake. The trial court instructed the jury that the plaintiff must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence yet also that the plaintiff must establish the facts to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court reversed, holding that clear and convincing evidence is the correct standard. On review, the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court's use of two conflicting standards was reversible error, clarified that the proper burden in civil reformation cases is clear and convincing evidence, and receded from earlier decisions that had required proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Company, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed a constitutional challenge to sections of the 1972 Florida no-fault automobile insurance law that limited tort recovery for personal injuries and property damage unless certain medical expense or injury thresholds were met. Plaintiffs Ann and Robert Lasky sued for pain and suffering damages after a car accident but had their claims dismissed under the statutes, prompting arguments that the provisions denied access to courts, jury trials, due process, and equal protection. The court held that the personal injury tort immunity rules in F.S. § 627.737 were constitutional because the mandatory no-fault insurance coverage supplied a reasonable alternative remedy, while property damage immunity under § 627.738 had already been struck down in a separate case. The decision emphasized that the no-fault framework exchanged limited tort rights for guaranteed benefits and addressed inefficiencies in the prior system.

torts & liabilityprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a certified question from a county court regarding the constitutionality of Florida's Chapter 73-120 (1973), a statute criminalizing the distribution of obscene materials, in a prosecution charging the defendant with exhibiting the film "Deep Throat." The county court asked whether the law's standards were unconstitutionally vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, failed to specifically define prohibited sexual conduct as required by Miller v. California, or improperly retained the "utterly without redeeming social value" test rejected in that U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Florida Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction because the issues implicated the validity of a state statute and proceeded to evaluate the statute's facial compliance with federal constitutional obscenity standards without addressing its application to the specific facts. The core reasoning centered on comparing the statutory language to the Miller requirements for defining obscenity and determining whether judicial construction or legislative amendment was needed to conform to those standards.

free speechcriminal law