FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

No reversals reported.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Dana Peterson v. State of Florida, Docket # 1D18-1416

The trial court committed fundamental error in finding that Appellant was competent to proceed based on defense counsel’s stipulation where there is no indication that the trial court reviewed the expert’s report, made an independent determination that Appellant’s competency had been restored, or entered a written order to that effect.

CLICK TO READ Edward D. Walker v. State of Florida, Docket # 1D18-372

Trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing after defense counsel requested a competency evaluation, and failed to make an individualized finding as to competency.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Corey Lamont Brown, Jr. v. State of Florida, Docket # 2D18-1892

Revocation of Community Control reversed, the only evidence of violation was that defendant failed to answer his front door when the community control officer visited at 6:50 a.m.  This was insufficient to prove a willful and substantial violation of community control.

CLICK TO READ State of Florida v. Jerry Pharisien, Docket # 2D18-4254

State petition for a writ of certiorari from an order that dismissed the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial on Attempted Second Degree Murder.  The defendant’s direct appeal only reversed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, not the Attempted Second Degree murder count.  The 2015 opinion in the direct appeal was ambiguously worded and reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.  Petition for writ of prohibition granted.

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CLICK TO READ Christopher Strachan v. State of Florida, Docket # 4D18-868

Conviction after trial for Aggravated Battery and Simple Battery reversed, new trial ordered.  Trial court allowed audio playback of the girlfriend’s testimony in the jury room, rather than in open court in the defendant’s presence, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410(a) and unreasonably limited the defendant’s voir dire of potential jurors.  The Fourth DCA also held that the trial court improperly excluded the victim’s threatening text message to the defendant as hearsay, and the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that justifiable use of force also applied to the lesser-included offenses because evidence existed to support such an instruction.  New trial ordered.

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

No reversals reported.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

CLICK TO READ Jimmy Lee Boston v. United States, Docket # 17-13870

Second or successive motion to correct sentence 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), (h), under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) properly denied.  An aider and abettor is liable under Florida law for all the acts of a principal, so all of Boston’s armed-robbery convictions, even those where he only aided and abetted an armed robbery, count as violent felonies the same as if he had committed the armed robbery himself.

CLICK TO READ Paulius Telamy v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Docket # 19-10051

Dismissal of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus reversed, petition reinstated.  The district court erred in sua sponte rejecting the state’s express waiver of exhaustion and dismissing Telamy’s claim as procedurally barred, without considering the merits of whether a Brady violation occurred.

CLICK TO READ United States v. Alexander Guerro, et al, Docket # 17-13982

Conviction for violation of Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act reversed and dismissed.  The Government failed to prove that the defendants’ vessel was stateless and therefore subject to United States jurisdiction.

CLICK TO READ United States v. Emmanuel Springsteen, Docket # 18-14831

Government appeal of 54-month sentence, sentence reversed and remanded.  The District Court did not have the authority to sentence Springsteen below the seven-year mandatory minimum for his conviction for using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and, although it did not object below, the district court’s error was plain.

CLICK TO READ United States v. Roberta Sheffield, Docket # 17-13682

Appeal of restitution order, order reversed.  Where, as here, the appropriate restitution amount is definite and easy to calculate, the government cannot satisfy its burden of proof by relying on the oft-stated (but not always applicable) principle that restitution can be based on a reasonable estimate of loss.