Charles E. Miner

In Byrd v. State, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari after the trial court denied her motion to dismiss criminal charges without prejudice under a Florida statute allowing dismissal for defendants incompetent due to mental retardation. The District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.213(a) takes precedence over the statute and requires denial of the motion. The court reasoned that while the rule applies uniformly, the legislature intended different treatment for incompetence caused by mental illness versus mental retardation or autism, and suggested the Florida Supreme Court consider amending the rule accordingly.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Gtech to a contract for on-line lottery services awarded by the Florida Department of Lottery to Automated Wagering International (AWI) following a competitive request for proposals process in which Gtech and AWI were the only bidders. After Gtech was eliminated, the Lottery negotiated and entered a contract with AWI that altered or omitted material terms from AWI's original proposal, including price-related provisions. The trial court granted summary judgment to Gtech, declaring the contract null and void and enjoining its performance on the ground that the changes violated competitive bidding requirements designed to prevent favoritism. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the post-award negotiations improperly favored AWI over the terms of its winning proposal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Glendell Russ, a Quincy city commissioner, who was charged with official misconduct and petit theft after using a city discretionary fund check to buy toys at Toys-R-Us, pocketing $100 cash from a shopper and purchasing some items for a non-resident while claiming the funds were for local needy children. The jury convicted him on both counts, but the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal on the official misconduct charge, concluding that negotiating the check did not constitute falsifying an official record under section 839.25, Florida Statutes. On appeal by the State, the District Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal, holding that the statute's prohibition on knowingly falsifying an official document encompasses misrepresentations made through the use of the check, such as submitting it to falsely indicate authorized purchases for the city's benefit. The court affirmed Russ's cross-appeal of the theft conviction without discussion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved psychologist Glenn Caddy, who was sanctioned by the Florida Board of Psychology for entering into a sexual relationship with a former client nearly a year after completing a one-month forensic assessment in a custody matter. The Board applied an administrative rule defining sexual misconduct and deeming the psychologist-client relationship to continue in perpetuity, leading to a one-year license suspension and probation. Caddy challenged the rule's constitutionality on appeal, arguing it violated privacy rights under Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution by imposing an absolute ban without exceptions or a showing of compelling state interest using the least intrusive means. The court reversed the sanctions, striking the perpetuity provision from the rule as facially unconstitutional and directing the Board to rescind all penalties.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

In Wilson v. State, a mother was charged with aggravated child abuse after slapping her six-year-old son once across the face with an open hand during an attempt to discipline him for a temper tantrum, resulting in a red mark but no serious injury. She filed a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), arguing that the facts did not establish a prima facie case because her action constituted privileged nonexcessive corporal punishment by a parent. The trial court reduced the charge to felony child abuse under section 827.03(1)(b) but denied the motion as to that charge, after which she pled no contest while reserving the right to appeal. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the conviction, holding that the undisputed facts established a privileged battery exempt from prosecution under the felony child abuse statute, with the distinction from criminal conduct lying in the malice required for aggravated child abuse.

criminal lawfamily law

This case involved Danny Rolling, a convicted murderer on death row, and Sondra London challenging a lien imposed on proceeds from Rolling's personal property, including a book recounting his crimes, under Florida statutes providing for restitution to victims and the state. The trial court found that the property's value derived from the crimes and that London was marketing it on Rolling's behalf through their relationship and contracts, and it imposed the lien. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that the lien could be upheld solely under sections 960.29-.297 without needing to consider the constitutionality of section 944.512, as the evidence supported that London received benefits on Rolling's behalf and the statutes cover such proceeds and transfers. The court noted that Rolling could not avoid the lien by assigning rights to London.

criminal lawproperty

In Williams v. State, the appellant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a traffic stop initiated based on an anonymous tip about a possibly intoxicated driver. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the anonymous tip lacked sufficient corroboration of criminal activity to justify the investigative stop. The officer had followed the vehicle briefly but observed no signs of impairment or suspicious behavior, and the tip's description was too general. Consequently, the court vacated the appellant's conviction and sentence following his nolo contendere plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Citibank's attempt to hold Safeco Title Insurance vicariously liable for fraud committed by attorney Tom Turner, who was Safeco's appointed agent for issuing title insurance commitments and policies in connection with real estate loans made by Caribank. A jury found Safeco liable based on Turner's actions in five loan transactions where he also acted as borrower or borrower's counsel and engaged in alleged fraud such as land flipping and improper mortgage assignments. The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed, holding that Safeco was entitled to a directed verdict because Turner's fraudulent conduct fell outside both his actual authority (limited to signing and issuing title documents) and any apparent authority, as the bank had already issued loan commitments before requesting title insurance and the title policies accurately reflected the chain of title. The court reasoned that title insurance does not address property valuation or underlying transactional fraud, and Safeco did not put Turner in a position enabling the fraud under agency principles from the Restatement (Second) of Agency. The matter was remanded for entry of judgment in Safeco's favor.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involves an appeal from a Florida trial court's final judgment dissolving a marriage between Craig and Anne Vanbrussel, focusing on the awards of child support for their three children and rehabilitative alimony to the wife. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution of the marriage but reversed the child support and alimony awards, remanding the case for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings under section 61.30 when departing from child support guidelines or imputing income to the underemployed husband, and provided no findings to support the rehabilitative alimony award. The opinion noted that the alimony might instead qualify as bridge-the-gap alimony to aid the transition to single life, which could be awarded without a formal rehabilitative plan.

family law

The case concerned a mother's appeal of a trial court order terminating her parental rights to her two minor sons, who had been adjudicated dependent after being left in Florida without adequate care and after the mother repeatedly failed to attend hearings, complete case plan tasks, or maintain contact with the children or authorities. The appellate court affirmed the termination, concluding that the prior dependency order, even if technically incomplete, satisfied the statutory requirement of a prior adjudication and that denying a last-minute continuance for the mother's absence at the termination hearing was not an abuse of discretion given her pattern of nonappearance. The court emphasized that the Department had presented independent clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination at the hearing and that the mother had prior opportunities to challenge the proceedings.

family lawprocedure

In this case, Perry Harvey entered no-contest pleas to possession of cocaine with intent to sell and carrying a concealed firearm after reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop for speeding. The arresting officer had observed Harvey make hand movements suggesting he might be hiding something, ordered him out of the car, handcuffed him, and then pulled back his waistband to look inside his underwear and buttocks, retrieving a bag of cocaine before conducting any pat-down; a subsequent car search uncovered a shotgun. The court reversed the convictions and remanded with directions to discharge Harvey, holding that the search exceeded the limited scope permitted under Terry v. Ohio and Florida's Stop and Frisk Law because it was not confined to a weapons pat-down, the officer lacked probable cause to arrest until after the search, and no extraordinary circumstances justified the intrusion beyond what was minimally necessary to check for weapons.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved Jason Jamel Warren's convictions for multiple counts of uttering forged instruments arising from a payroll-check forgery scheme. Warren challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a locked briefcase that had been repossessed from a leased car by a private company, which then turned it over to police; he also raised double jeopardy claims regarding related theft convictions and contested a public defender lien imposed at sentencing. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the warrantless examination of the briefcase did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the initial search was conducted by a private party and police merely replicated that search, consistent with United States v. Jacobsen. The double jeopardy argument was rejected as meritless. However, the court reversed the lien because the trial court failed to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720, remanding solely for that purpose.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cargle v. State, a juvenile defendant charged and tried as an adult for attempted armed robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm received adult prison sentences after turning 18, prompting a challenge that the trial court neither considered nor documented in writing the statutory criteria under section 39.059(7) for imposing adult sanctions on juveniles. The appellant sought reversal based on prior precedent treating such omissions as reversible error, while the state argued waiver under new appeal rules. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, reasoning that the 1996 Criminal Appeal Reform Act and revised Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 required the defendant to preserve the claim by filing a timely motion to correct the sentence, which was not done, rendering the issue unreviewable on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Kellar v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions for kidnapping, sexual battery while armed, and attempted first-degree murder, arguing that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to confirm on the record that he knowingly waived his presence at bench conferences where peremptory jury challenges were exercised. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, affirmed the convictions and sentences in full. The court noted that jury selection occurred in August 1995 with the defendant initially present at one bench conference but absent from later ones after his counsel stated on the record that they had discussed and agreed to waive his presence for strategic reasons. Relying on Coney v. State and Mejia v. State, the court held that any procedural error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the record showed the defendant had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the peremptory challenge decisions and the error did not affect the trial outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

In Red v. Gnat, a juvenile petitioner sought habeas corpus relief after being adjudicated delinquent for misdemeanor battery and trespass and committed to a high-risk residential program, arguing that his secure detention pending placement exceeded the statutory 15-day limit under section 39.044(10), Florida Statutes. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied relief. The court reasoned that the 15-day limit on secure detention applies only to low- or moderate-risk placements, while paragraphs (10)(c) and (d) specifically require that juveniles committed to high- or maximum-risk programs be held in detention care or an assignment center until placement, without imposing any time restriction. Thus, the petitioner's continued secure detention was authorized by statute.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hadden v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions on three counts of sexual battery on a child under twelve, challenging the admission of the child's hearsay statements and expert testimony from a mental health counselor that the victim exhibited symptoms consistent with sexual abuse. The Florida First District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, first determined that the trial court's findings sufficiently supported introduction of the hearsay statements. On the expert testimony issue, the court concluded that a Frye hearing was not required because the testimony was based on the witness's clinical experience and training rather than novel scientific techniques, distinguishing it from cases involving unproven syndromes, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from multi-party litigation over the completion of a wastewater collection system in Cross City, Florida, after the original contractor defaulted and USF&G (as surety) hired H&S as the completing contractor, who then also defaulted; USF&G sued H&S and its surety Fidelity for damages, H&S counterclaimed, and H&S separately sued the project engineer JEA for alleged misrepresentations about site conditions. The trial court ruled against H&S and Fidelity on liability and most contract claims, including rejecting negligent misrepresentation claims against JEA, while awarding USF&G damages and prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the findings of no liability for JEA (because H&S had inspected the site and could not reasonably rely on prior reports) and the interpretations limiting attorneys' fees under the contracts, but reversed in part to reduce the prejudgment interest award from over $725,000 to about $90,000 based on established fixed dates for the amounts due.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Hannelore Kurnik, a disabled Florida resident whose application for the Medically Needy Medicaid Program to cover prescription drug costs was delayed for months by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services despite repeated efforts to apply starting in December 1991. HRS eventually determined eligibility retroactive to December 1991 but denied direct reimbursement for her out-of-pocket expenses totaling over $1,600, citing state rules that payments go only to providers. The hearing officer upheld the denial, but the District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed, holding that Kurnik was entitled to direct reimbursement. The court reasoned that Florida's participation in the federal Medicaid program requires compliance with federal rules mandating timely eligibility determinations, and unreasonable agency delays entitled the applicant to be made whole for expenses incurred before eligibility was processed.

healthcarefederal power

This case concerns a challenge by parents to Florida Statute section 752.01(1)(e), which authorizes courts to grant visitation to grandparents with a child in an intact nuclear family upon a finding that it serves the child's best interest when parents have used their authority to block the relationship. The trial court held the provision facially unconstitutional under Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution as an unwarranted intrusion on parental privacy rights absent proof of harm to the child. The District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the statute is not facially unconstitutional under the state or federal constitutions because it requires a best-interest determination and does not impose visitation without legislative justification. The court remanded for a hearing to assess whether visitation would benefit the specific child under the facts presented.

family law

In Todd v. State, two appellants challenged their felony convictions under Florida Statute section 806.13(2) for spray-painting anti-religious symbols on churches, arguing that the law violated the Establishment Clauses of the state and federal constitutions as well as equal protection guarantees. The District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the convictions, holding that the statute was constitutional. The court applied the Lemon test and found a secular purpose in protecting places of worship, determined that any benefit to religion was indirect, and concluded there was no excessive entanglement; it also applied rational basis review to reject the equal protection claim. The court separately affirmed the imposition of adult sanctions on the minor appellant without written findings.

criminal lawreligious liberty