Notable Florida Decisions

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying three motions for mistrial where the prosecutor's cross-examination of a defense witness addressed third-party communications rather than the defendant's silence, the prosecutor's statement about the illegality of firing from a vehicle was not presented as a substitute for proper jury instructions on justifiable use of deadly force, and the prosecutor's characterization of the defendant's conduct during closing argument was isolated and tied to evidence of motive and intent rather than an improper appeal to juror emotion.

A trial court has discretion to refuse a downward departure sentence even when mitigating circumstances are presented, and a defendant's claim that the court "should have" imposed a departure sentence does not constitute reversible error because there is no constitutional or statutory right to a particular sentence within a legally permissible range.

An insured who settles a third-party claim without the required consent and subrogation waiver from the underinsured motorist insurer can overcome the presumption of prejudice by demonstrating the tortfeasor's probable insolvency, measured by whether a reasonably prudent insurer would have approved the settlement or pursued collections at significant expense.

The trial court's award of $9,596 to Sarbu Construction for substantial performance of a change order is affirmed. However, the determination that Sarbu Construction was the prevailing party is reversed because the trial court applied an incorrect test; the proper test requires consideration of which party prevailed on the significant issues tried, not merely the net monetary award.

Once parental rights are terminated by final judgment, a parent permanently forfeits all rights to the child and has no legal basis for habeas relief, which can only be used to obtain custody of a child wrongfully withheld. A parent seeking to challenge a termination of parental rights must do so through proper appeal, not through subsequent extraordinary writs.

A belated appeal is granted to allow review of an order denying a defendant's claim that intellectual disability bars execution, with the claim properly characterized as a collateral attack under Rule 3.851 rather than a Rule 3.203 penalty phase motion, since the death sentence had become absolutely final.

A mandamus complaint seeking to compel a special magistrate to issue a written recommendation under FLUEDRA states a plausible claim for relief targeting a ministerial duty, as the statute's mandatory 'shall prepare and file' language imposes a non-discretionary obligation to issue the recommendation, even though the recommendation's substance remains within the magistrate's discretion. Where a mandamus petition and the respondent's answer to an alternative writ raise disputed factual issues—such as whether the parties agreed, expressly or by conduct, to extend the FLUEDRA process beyond 165 d

The Court unified all Florida family law forms under the designation "Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms" and amended Rule 12.015 to permit the Court to create, amend, or abrogate forms by order or opinion outside the rulemaking process, with the Advisory Workgroup on the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms providing recommendations to the Court. The Court also amended Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 10-2.2 to remove references to rules forms and update references throughout the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure to reflect the new unified designation.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding retroactive child support, but it erred in calculating the amount by: (1) crediting Father with tax deductions he did not actually pay; (2) awarding Father overnight timesharing credit for visits to Mother's home where he was a guest; (3) incorrectly calculating Father's travel expense credits; (4) failing to make findings on Mother's nanny expenses; and (5) failing to credit Mother's daycare expenses.

A county code enforcement board misapplies an ordinance when it applies swimming pool maintenance requirements to a structure that is not currently intended for swimming or recreation bathing, even if the structure was originally designed as a swimming pool. The plain language of an ordinance's definition, including the present-tense verb "is intended," must be applied according to its ordinary meaning, and a circuit court errs when it defers to an administrative agency's interpretation of a local ordinance in violation of article V, section 21 of the Florida Constitution, which prohibits such

A visitor's status as a business invitee can change to that of an uninvited licensee or trespasser when the visitor crosses the boundaries of the invitation and goes to areas of the premises beyond the scope of the invitation. When a minor purchased a ticket to an amusement park event and subsequently climbed onto a professional circus trampoline on a performance stage to engage in horseplay, his status changed from business invitee to uninvited licensee or trespasser because access to the stage and trampoline were not part of the invitation and his presence thereon was not reasonably anticipa

A visitor's status as a business invitee extends only to those portions of premises included within the invitation and reasonably anticipated for the invitee's use; when a visitor crosses the boundaries of the invitation, his status changes to that of an uninvited licensee or trespasser, and the duty of care owed by the landowner is reduced to avoiding willful or wanton harm and warning of known dangers not open to ordinary observation. The trial court erred in determining as a matter of law that the child remained a business invitee when he went onto the performance stage and trampoline, whic

A trial court may declare a pro se litigant a vexatious litigant under Florida Statutes section 68.093 based on competent, substantial evidence of repeated frivolous filings and abusive litigation tactics, and may impose both statutory sanctions and additional non-statutory sanctions under its inherent authority, including barring pro se filings and deactivating e-filing privileges, without issuing a separate show cause order when the motion clearly identifies the requested sanctions and the litigant receives notice and opportunity to be heard.

Sufficient evidence supported a felony criminal mischief conviction where the defendant intentionally applied great force to a malfunctioning gate in a manner not designed for the gate, knowing damage would likely result, and had reasonable alternatives such as calling police or stopping his efforts. The statutory element of 'maliciously' does not require ill will or hatred but only wrongful, intentional conduct without legal justification or excuse.

Section 39.806(1)(j) authorizes termination of parental rights where a parent has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic substance use that renders them presently incapable of caring for the child and they have refused or failed to complete available treatment during the three-year period preceding the petition, even if they completed one treatment program during that same period. Completion of treatment does not create a safe harbor when the parent remains incapable of safely parenting and has failed or refused other available treatment.

Proceedings concerning removal from the sexual offender registry are civil in nature, not criminal, and therefore subject to appellate review under the civil appellate rules. FDLE has standing to challenge an order directing removal from the registry because section 943.0436(3) expressly authorizes an affected agency to file a motion when an order affects its statutory duties, and the removal order directly affected FDLE's duty to maintain the registry. The current version of section 943.0435 applies retroactively to Garcia's 2024 petition because the statute is procedural rather than substant

A warrant is required to obtain a nonconsensual blood draw in DUI cases unless the defendant gives actual consent or exigent circumstances exist; statutory implied consent laws cannot satisfy the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Florida Statutes section 316.1933 must be read as directing law enforcement to obtain blood samples with a warrant when probable cause exists, absent actual consent or exigent circumstances. Language in State v. Acevedo suggesting a probable cause exception to the warrant requirement was unnecessary dicta and does not create an exception to the Birchfield warran

A mandatory forum selection clause in a contract applies to all claims arising from or relating to the agreement and its subject matter, regardless of how the claims are labeled or what state law they invoke. Parties cannot circumvent an agreed forum selection clause by characterizing claims as arising under state law or by attaching noncontractual labels to the alleged misconduct.

The trial court properly summarily denied Conahan's third and fourth successive motions for post-conviction relief because the evidence cited was not newly discovered—the underlying facts were known or could have been discovered through due diligence decades earlier, and Conahan failed to establish good cause for raising the claims in successive motions. The trial court properly denied Conahan's Rule 3.853 motion for post-conviction DNA testing because Conahan failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that DNA testing would have resulted in acquittal or a lesser sentence, as the items had

The Court amended Rules 1.080 and 1.090 substantially as proposed by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, clarifying that documents must be filed "with the court" and adding cross-references to related rules. The Court rejected proposed deletions of the "good cause" requirement for time extensions and declined to amend Rule 1.490.

Once evidence is properly excluded under the rules of evidence, it does not legally exist for jury consideration, and opposing counsel may argue its absence without committing reversible error. Although the defendant's categorical assertion that no one from Family Medical Group had rendered an opinion of permanent injury was objectively untrue (since someone did render such an opinion, but it was excluded as hearsay), the error was harmless because the core message—that the jury heard no admissible evidence of permanent injury—was conveyed and no reasonable possibility existed that the impreci

A postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to investigate and locate a witness is not subject to summary denial unless the claim is facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record; the trial court must grant leave to amend, hold an evidentiary hearing, or attach record portions that conclusively refute the claim.

A qualifying sex offense conviction from another jurisdiction may be proven through competent testimony of a probation officer without requiring certified copies or fingerprints when the testimony is received without objection.

A statement is not admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception when the declarant's state of mind is not an issue in the case and the statement is not used to prove or explain the declarant's subsequent conduct.

A forum selection clause in a contract applies only to legal actions "commenced hereunder," meaning suits based on the contract itself. Claims arising from breached promises that predate the contract and do not implicate its terms are not subject to the forum selection clause.

The admission of irrelevant evidence (a steak knife and unused condoms) with no connection to the charged crimes, combined with multiple improper prosecutorial statements during closing argument, constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal of convictions for sexual battery and battery. The incest conviction was affirmed because defense counsel, with Green's approval, acknowledged the State proved guilt on that charge.

Property classified as marital in a dissolution judgment does not automatically convert to joint ownership or create standing for partition under Florida law. A party seeking partition must demonstrate legal title or a right to partition, which cannot be established merely by the property's classification as marital.

Materials obtained and reviewed by law enforcement during a criminal investigation constitute public records under Florida Statutes section 119.011(12) unless they fall within a recognized statutory exemption. The Fourth Amendment does not operate as a free-floating, unenacted public records exemption, and the exclusionary rule applies only in criminal trials, not in civil public records disputes. A trial court errs when it decides issues not raised in the pleadings without consent of the parties or a motion to conform pleadings to evidence. The spousal privilege codified in Florida Statutes s

The trial court properly applied the rebuttable presumption under section 63.082(6)(e), Florida Statutes (2023), and did not abuse its discretion in finding the presumption rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and modifying custody to A.S.L. The trial court's statement that it gave the presumption "minimal weight" was inartful wording but did not demonstrate a failure to apply the presumption when viewed in context of the extensive evidentiary hearing and detailed fourteen-page order. The unusual circumstances of this case—including the child's three-year split-custody arrangement with bo

A parent seeking to modify a timesharing order must first establish a substantial and material change in circumstances; a long-distance parent's relocation to within 50 miles of the other parent may constitute such a change under § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2024). Once a substantial and material change is established, the trial court must determine whether modification is in the child's best interests, and complete denial of timesharing is an abuse of discretion when the evidence does not establish that such denial is necessary to protect the child's welfare. Although a modification to equal times