William C. Pierce

William Beason Morrison was convicted of second degree murder in Polk County and, nearly three years later, filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence on grounds that he had been denied a speedy trial and received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court held that the speedy-trial issue could have been raised on direct appeal and was therefore barred in post-conviction proceedings, while the ineffective-counsel claim was unsupported by specific factual allegations and failed to show gross incompetence that eliminated a substantial defense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage of Roger and Winifred Harloff, which required the husband to pay weekly child support and alimony, transfer his interest in the marital home as lump-sum alimony, maintain health insurance for the three minor children, pay a portion of income over $5,000 as additional alimony, and irrevocably change the beneficiaries on his life insurance policies to the three minor sons. The husband challenged only the life-insurance beneficiary requirement, arguing it lacked any time limit. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that a court may properly require a divorced parent to maintain life insurance as security for child-support obligations, with the provision subject to later modification once a child reaches majority or becomes self-supporting. The court found the remaining issues on appeal to be without merit.

family law

This case involved a lawsuit by Evah Biel against R.E. Rutland for injuries she sustained when she tripped over his dog while attending a church function at his home. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on liability in Biel's favor under Florida Statute section 767.01, which imposes liability on dog owners for damages caused by their dogs. The appellate court reversed that ruling, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to assumption of risk and proximate causation because Biel had seen the dog before stepping backward. The court also held that the statute does not apply where the dog takes no affirmative or aggressive action toward the injured party.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Preston Chester's appeal from a conviction in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. Chester argued that the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to present alibi testimony at trial. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding the testimony because Chester failed to comply with the notice requirements of CrPR 3.200. The court also noted that the proposed testimony was based on hearsay rather than personal knowledge and that a claim of inadequate representation by counsel could not be raised for the first time on direct appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In this negligence case, Willie Lee Moore sued the City of St. Petersburg after falling into a sinkhole in an alley behind his home, which he alleged resulted from the city's failure to maintain its sewer system in good repair, causing erosion and a cave-in. The trial court entered judgment for the city notwithstanding a jury verdict in Moore's favor. The appellate court affirmed, holding that operation of a sewage disposal system is a governmental function for which the city enjoys immunity from tort liability absent a direct transaction or confrontation between the plaintiff and city agents or employees, and that no such privity or special duty was shown. The court also noted the absence of evidence that the city had actual or constructive notice of the defect, though it emphasized that governmental immunity is jurisdictional and can be raised at any time rather than as an affirmative defense.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In White v. State, three defendants were convicted of rape in Florida, with one pleading guilty and receiving a 10-year sentence while the other two were sentenced to 20 and 30 years after trial. They appealed, arguing that the trial violated Florida's speedy trial rule by occurring after 180 days from their arrest. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants' own requests for continuances and extensions tolled the running of the speedy trial period, bringing the trial within the required timeframe.

criminal lawprocedure