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

In State v. Catt, the State appealed a trial court order suppressing blood test results from a driver charged with DUI causing serious injury after an accident where her child was ejected from the vehicle. The appellate court reversed the suppression, holding that the officers had probable cause to order the blood draw under Florida Statute 316.1933. The court found that the smell of alcohol on the driver's breath established probable cause for impairment, and the child's ejection from the car followed by airlifting to a hospital for possible internal injuries satisfied the requirement for serious bodily injury. The trial court's contrary finding lacked support from the evidence presented by officers at the scene.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from Chicago Title Insurance Company's counterclaims against its former exclusive title agents (Alday-Donalson entities and principals Thomas Alday and Ronald Donalson), the agents' new asset-holding corporation Alday America, and new underwriter Stewart Title, alleging breach of exclusivity agreements, tortious interference with contracts and guaranties, conspiracy, successor liability, and related claims after the agents transferred assets and began issuing policies exclusively for Stewart Title. The trial court dismissed nearly all claims with prejudice and later granted summary judgment to Stewart Title on the remaining tortious interference count. The appellate court affirmed the rulings as to Stewart Title, Alday, and Donalson, holding that Chicago Title failed to show Stewart Title induced any breach and that review of the individual claims was premature because those parties remained in the underlying action, but reversed dismissal of the successor liability count against Alday America on the ground that the complaint adequately alleged de facto merger or mere continuation. The court remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Pauker v. Olson, a patient sued her psychiatrist for medical malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming he engaged in a sexual relationship with her and improperly disclosed her confidential psychiatric information. The trial court overruled the doctor's objections and ordered production of documents in response to fifteen requests, including his own prescription and mental health records as well as identities and correspondence of his other patients. On certiorari review, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, granted the petition in part and quashed the production order as to requests 2, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The court reasoned that these requests sought materials protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege under section 90.503, Florida Statutes, or information that was irrelevant to the claims and not likely to lead to admissible evidence, while noting that the doctor had not placed his own mental condition at issue.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In this case, Melvin Penn appealed the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief following his conviction for first-degree murder with a firearm and life sentence. Penn claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, failing to subpoena a witness who could testify about Penn's drinking, and not pursuing a temporary insanity defense based on intoxication. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion, finding that counsel's decisions not to pursue the intoxication defense or call the witness were reasonable strategic choices supported by the evidence and witness statements, which did not show sufficient intoxication to negate intent and included potentially damaging testimony. The appellate court affirmed, adopting the trial court's order and concluding that the claims did not satisfy the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance. The topics are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a Florida divorce appeal by the husband challenging the trial court's financial rulings on alimony and child support in a dissolution of a fifteen-year marriage with four children. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that the trial court improperly imputed $15,000 in annual income from the husband's mother's periodic gifts of food, clothing, and money because the record lacked competent evidence that these were regular, consistent, or tied to employment. The court further required the trial court on remand to assign specific dollar values to the husband's employment benefits such as insurance and IRA contributions, to include the value of the wife's exclusive use of the marital home in her income, to make findings supporting the rehabilitative alimony award, and to cap the cost of the husband's medical insurance obligation for the wife while eliminating the life insurance requirement due to lack of evidence or special circumstances; the judgment was affirmed in all other respects.

family law

This case involved Aqua Gaming seeking a temporary injunction against its former employee William East and his new company Gaming Technology for allegedly misappropriating a confidential customer list and other trade secrets to solicit business. The trial court granted the injunction, prohibiting use of the information, requiring its return, and barring competition in the same territory. The appellate court affirmed the injunction regarding the trade secrets and return of information, finding the customer list qualified as a trade secret under Florida law and met the criteria for injunctive relief, but reversed the broad restriction on all competitive business because there was no non-compete agreement. The court also required the posting of a bond and remanded for that purpose.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

In Davis v. State, Varrow Lucious Davis appealed the trial court's summary denial of his postconviction motion, which challenged his consecutively imposed habitual violent felony offender sentences and was styled as a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The appellate court affirmed the denial after treating the claims as raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, finding the motion untimely filed. The court noted that Davis could pursue his claim regarding the sentences under Rule 3.800(a) if it could be resolved from the face of the record, citing precedent such as Hale v. State and Allen v. State.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved challenges by several Florida counties and other parties to existing and proposed rules and agency statements issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District governing Water Use Permits, primarily in the Southern Water Use Caution Area. The challenges, brought under Florida's Administrative Procedure Act, claimed that certain rules exceeded the District's delegated legislative authority under chapter 373, Florida Statutes. An Administrative Law Judge consolidated the petitions, held a hearing, and issued an order upholding some rules while invalidating others. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal reversed the ALJ's rulings on four issues raised by the District and affirmed the ALJ's decisions on the cross-appeals, finding the challenged provisions consistent with statutory authority after some issues became moot due to withdrawals. The core reasoning centered on whether the rules and statements were valid exercises of the District's rulemaking power to manage water resources under the Florida Water Resources Act.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Findley v. State, Alton Glen Findley appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, arguing that police officers illegally entered his home without a warrant or consent, detained him, and obtained an invalid consent to search that led to the discovery of evidence. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reversed the convictions and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that the officers' uninvited entry into the home violated the Fourth Amendment absent exigent circumstances, that Findley's compliance in stepping outside constituted an illegal detention, and that the subsequent consent to search was presumptively tainted because the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence an unequivocal break in the chain of illegality, such as by advising Findley of his right to refuse consent. The court also rejected the argument that Findley's minor daughter could consent to the search under the circumstances, as the parent was present in the home.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice action in which Robert Riegel and his wife sued Dr. Michael Beilan and his medical group for injuries Riegel suffered after knee-replacement surgery when an NG tube was not inserted despite a doctor's order. The jury found the defendants 30 percent liable but attributed 70 percent of the fault to Riegel under a comparative-negligence instruction. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed that portion of the judgment, ruling that the trial court erred by giving the comparative-negligence instruction because the record contained no evidence that Riegel owed or breached a duty of care or that any such breach proximately caused his injuries. The court noted that the doctor's order and nurse's note alone were insufficient to show what information, if any, was given to Riegel about the tube. It remanded with directions to enter judgment for Riegel in the full amount of damages.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

Paula Albritton was convicted after a jury trial of abuse of a dead body, a second-degree felony, based on her videotaped statements to police describing her involvement in mutilating a body as part of a religious ritual. She moved to suppress the statements as involuntary, claiming they were induced by a detective's assurance that religious activity was protected by the Constitution and would not lead to prosecution. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the confessions were involuntary and that any taint from the initial improper promise had not dissipated by the time of her second statement the following day. Without those statements, the state presented no prima facie case.

criminal lawreligious libertyprocedure

This case involves a Florida divorce proceeding in which the husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution, challenging the trial court's valuation of the marital portion of the wife's workers' compensation settlement, the classification of trust funds set aside for the parties' minor children as marital assets subject to equitable distribution, and the ruling on attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's valuation of $5,250 as the marital portion of the settlement, finding it within the range supported by the evidence. However, it reversed the determination that the trust funds were marital assets, reasoning that the husband as trustee could not convert the children's trust property into marital property through misuse and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the property rights of nonparties (the children). The court remanded for a new equitable distribution scheme and reconsideration of attorney's fees in light of that change.

family lawproperty

James E. Brake, Jr. entered a no contest plea to the offense of luring or enticing a child under section 787.025, Florida Statutes (1997), which makes it a third-degree felony for certain previously convicted sex offenders to intentionally lure or entice a child under twelve into a structure, dwelling, or conveyance for other than a lawful purpose, and he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion, but on appeal the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reversed the conviction. The court held that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because the term "other than a lawful purpose" is not defined in the statute or related chapters, is not clarified by common usage or the listed affirmative defenses, and therefore fails to give persons of common intelligence adequate notice of the proscribed conduct while risking arbitrary enforcement. The court remanded with instructions to grant the motion to dismiss and discharge the defendant.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a challenge to a final judgment of dissolution of marriage by the appellant, who was incarcerated at the time. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by setting the final hearing without allowing a reasonable time from service of the notice, in violation of Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.440(a), which requires that trial be set within a reasonable time from the service of the notice for trial. The court found that service of the notice less than ten days prior to the hearing did not constitute a reasonable time, preventing the appellant from appearing. As a result, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new hearing, citing precedent that the procedural defect required setting aside the judgment even if it appeared favorable to the appellant.

family lawprocedure