FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

No reversals reported.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Antwand Howard v. State of Florida, Docket # 1D17-1520

Conviction after trial of Solicitation of a Minor Via Computer, Traveling to Meet a Minor, Lewd or Lascivious Molestation.  Because the dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor violate double jeopardy, because the traveling statute includes the language making solicitation a crime.  The solicitation charge was dismissed.

CLICK TO READ Haley Bowden v. State of Florida, Docket # 1D18-2676

Conviction for Murder, Burglary, Grand Theft Auto upon plea of guilty reversed, the trial court erred in accepting her plea without holding a competency hearing to determine that her competency had been restored.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ D.F. v. State of Florida, Docket # 3D19-0003

Appeal of juvenile delinquency violation of probation, record did not support finding that D.F. failed to abide by his curfew, failed to participate in individual counseling, failed to continue attending the Empowered Youth program and failed to complete 100 community service hours.  State concedes error

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

CLICK TO READ George C. Sneathen v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, Docket # 18-12254

Appeal of denial of Federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.  Sneathen petitioned for relief from his convictions for the sexual battery of and for the lewd and lascivious molestation of M.G., Fla. Stat. §§ 794.011(2), 800.04(5)(b), after the Florida courts rejected his pro se postconviction motion challenging the effectiveness of his trial counsel, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. The Eleventh Circuit a certificate of appealability to address two issues: whether the district court erred by rejecting as procedurally defaulted Sneathen’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the trial court sent a video recording of M.G.’s interview to the jury room; and whether the district court erred by treating the per curiam affirmance of Sneathen’s convictions on direct appeal as an adjudication of his evidentiary issue that defeated his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay evidence as unduly prejudicial.  But because Sneathen has cause to excuse his failure to exhaust his claim concerning trial counsel’s failure to object to M.G.’s interview and that claim is substantial,

CLICK TO READ United States v. Dane Gillis, Docket # 16-16482

After a jury trial, Defendant Dane Gillis appeals his convictions for: (1) attempting to knowingly induce or entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (Count 1); (2) solicitation of another to commit the crime of federal kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373 (Count 2); and (3) knowingly transmitting a communication containing a threat to kidnap, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (Count 3).  Count # 2, solicitation to commit kidnapping, reversed as legally insufficient.