Major B. Harding

The case involved Charles Murray, who after pleading guilty to attempted capital sexual battery and serving his prison term, was detained in a treatment facility pending civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act; he sought habeas corpus relief arguing that the commitment violated due process by breaching his plea agreement for probation. The Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the committing court and that the order was legal. On review for express conflict with Alachua Regional Juvenile Detention Center v. T.O., the Florida Supreme Court determined that the district court had misapplied the precedent on the limited scope of habeas review when lacking supervisory jurisdiction, and it addressed the proper transfer and handling of such petitions across territorial districts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the Florida Supreme Court's consideration of a Judicial Management Council report addressing the balance between individual privacy rights and public access to court records when those records are made available electronically, such as via the Internet. The Council was tasked with answering whether the Court should develop statewide policies on the issue, what steps would be needed to implement them, and whether a moratorium on electronic access should be imposed in the interim. After reviewing workshops, presentations from other jurisdictions, public comments, and the benefits of electronic access alongside risks to confidential or sensitive information, the Court noted that the Legislature had enacted a law creating a 21-member study committee to examine electronic access to court records and report back by January 2003. The opinion also highlighted national efforts to develop model policies and stressed that clerks must not release statutorily exempt information online.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a defendant who filed a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct his consecutive habitual offender sentences, arguing that the underlying offenses occurred during a single criminal episode in violation of Hale v. State. The trial court denied the motion as untimely under rule 3.850, and the district court affirmed, holding that a sworn arrest report in the court file could not be used to resolve the factual question of whether the offenses arose from one episode. The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that such a determination requires an evidentiary hearing and cannot be made as a matter of law from untested hearsay in a police report. The court reasoned that its precedent in Callaway limits rule 3.800 motions to pure questions of law and that rule 3.850 provides the proper mechanism with its time limits and hearing procedures. The defendant's claim was therefore time-barred.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned Mitchell Westerheide's challenge to his involuntary civil commitment under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act as a sexually violent predator following his criminal convictions for sexual offenses against a child. The trial court rejected Westerheide's constitutional challenges, a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator based on expert testimony regarding his mental disorders and likelihood of reoffending, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the commitment while upholding the Act. On review of certified questions, the Florida Supreme Court held that the Act does not violate the ex post facto, double jeopardy, due process, or equal protection clauses of the U.S. or Florida constitutions. The court reasoned that the proceedings are civil rather than criminal in nature, aimed at treatment and public protection rather than punishment, and that the Act's requirements for clear and convincing evidence of a mental abnormality predisposing the person to reoffend provide adequate safeguards without needing less restrictive alternatives. The court also addressed related evidentiary issues but ultimately affirmed the commitment order.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a challenge to a 2002 Florida statute requiring the Department of State to prepare and include a fiscal impact statement (limited to 50 words) on the ballot for any citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, estimating effects on state or local revenues and costs. Two political committees advocating for specific initiatives (on class size reduction and pre-K education) sought to enjoin the Secretary of State from adding these statements to the November 2002 ballot, after the Florida Supreme Court had already approved their ballot titles and summaries. The trial court granted the injunction, ruling the law facially unconstitutional under article XI, sections 3 and 5 of the Florida Constitution, and the Supreme Court affirmed after de novo review. The core reasoning was that the state constitution reserves the initiative process to the people with defined requirements and does not authorize the legislature to impose additional ballot mandates like fiscal statements, unlike certain other states' constitutions that explicitly grant such authority. The Court also noted the law would improperly alter vested rights for initiatives already approved for the ballot.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of carjacking, robbery, and attempted false imprisonment who challenged his convictions and sentence on double jeopardy grounds and under the 1995 sentencing guidelines. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy does not prohibit convictions for both robbery and carjacking, approving the lower court's result on that issue in line with its decision in Cruller v. State. On the sentencing challenge, the court determined the defendant had standing to raise a Heggs claim because his offense occurred during the relevant window period, and it remanded for resentencing under the 1994 guidelines after finding they would produce a lower sentencing range.

criminal lawprocedure