Paul Danahy

This case involves an appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage of Brent and Robin Parker, where the husband challenged the trial court's distribution of marital assets, award of permanent alimony to the wife, and denial of several motions. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the dissolution of marriage and the denial of the motions but reversed the equitable distribution of assets and the alimony award. The court found that the asset distribution was not supported by competent substantial evidence, citing errors such as the inclusion of a nonexistent "Bonita Duplex" valued at $400,000, an unsupported valuation of a boat condo, and the omission of a $190,000 debt owed to the husband. It also determined that the alimony award lacked evidentiary support, as the trial court's findings on the husband's net monthly income were absent from the record and involved a mathematical error in calculating the wife's post-alimony income. The case was remanded for a new trial on the financial issues.

family lawproperty

The case involved C.G.H., a juvenile charged with the delinquent acts of burglary of a conveyance and third-degree grand theft after a camera was taken from a vehicle. The trial court found C.G.H. guilty of both offenses, withheld adjudication, and placed the juvenile on probation. The appellate court affirmed the burglary finding but reversed the grand theft finding because the only evidence of value was the camera's purchase price from one year earlier, which was insufficient under the statute to prove the property was worth $300 or more at the time of the theft. The court remanded the case with directions to reduce the grand theft charge to petit theft and enter a new disposition order.

criminal law

The case concerned burglary charges filed against Felix Perez for an offense committed in Florida in May 1998. After Perez was arrested in 2005 on a capias issued in 2000, the trial court granted his motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds, applying an earlier version of section 775.15 that required diligent efforts to locate the defendant. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the 1997 version of the statute governed; under that version the three-year limitations period was tolled by Perez's continuous absence from Florida, the filing of the information in 2000 was timely, and the state had no duty to extradite him from New Jersey. The court therefore directed reinstatement of the information.

criminal lawprocedure

William Conroy pleaded guilty to two counts of child neglect and was later sentenced by a different judge using an incorrect Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet and the wrong guidelines. Conroy filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to correct these sentencing errors, but the trial court granted the motion sixty-seven days after filing, beyond the rule's sixty-day deadline, which caused the court to lose jurisdiction. The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing with the correct scoresheets and guidelines before the original judge who accepted the plea, unless the record shows necessity for a substitute judge, because the trial court did not timely resolve the motion as required by the rule.

criminal lawprocedure

In this juvenile delinquency case, E.A.B. was charged with improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon and culpable negligence with actual injury after she used a kitchen knife to cut her older brother during a physical fight at their home. The trial court found her guilty and withheld adjudication, but the appellate court reversed that order. The court held that E.A.B. had established a prima facie case of self-defense by retreating as far as possible within the home before standing her ground, consistent with the castle doctrine, and that the state's evidence—primarily an investigating officer's testimony about statements she did not make—was legally insufficient to rebut it. Because the state therefore failed to prove the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sampson v. State, the appellant challenged the revocation of his community control after the trial court found he willfully violated its terms by committing new crimes and leaving his residence without permission. Although an affidavit detailing the alleged violations was presented and used at the revocation hearing, it was later lost or misfiled and never entered into the official court record. Sampson argued on appeal that this failure to file the affidavit constituted fundamental error requiring reversal, relying on prior cases. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that the error was not fundamental because Sampson received due process, including notice of the charges, an opportunity to contest them, and specific findings by the trial court, and thus suffered no prejudice. The decision emphasized that fundamental error must be shown to be harmful based on the record, distinguishing this case from precedents where prejudice was apparent.

criminal lawprocedure