GALANTE ROMAR PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida Supreme Court dismissed appeal of death sentence conviction because guilt phase issues were waived for lack of briefing and penalty phase issues were mooted by the requirement for a new penalty phase under Hurst v. State.
An appeal challenging a death sentence is dismissed as moot when the trial court has already ordered a new penalty phase proceeding, rendering the appellate review of prior penalty phase ineffectiveness claims inconsequential.
[1] A penalty phase issue in a capital case becomes moot when the trial court orders a new penalty phase proceeding, allowing the defendant to raise claims such as intellectu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He appealed an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to vacate his…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Appellate Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on appeal from an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.1 We hereby dismiss this appeal because the guilt phase issues were waived since they were not briefed by Phillips, and the penalty phase issues were mooted by the new penalty phase ordered by the trial court pursuant to Hurst v. State , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Because there will be a new penalty phase, it is inconsequential whether Phillips's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of intellectual disability at the previous penalty phase. As the State argued, Phillips may raise the issue of intellectual disability at the trial court prior to his new penalty phase proceedings. See Godwin v. State , 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992) ("A case is 'moot' when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist." (citing Black's Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed. 1990) ) ).
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)
- Florida v. Hurst., 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Ward v. Neal, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 2172 (U.S. 2017)