B. K. Roberts

This case concerned a Florida physician charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance who withdrew a not-guilty plea and entered a nolo contendere plea. The trial court, over the state's objection, held an evidentiary hearing, received evidence and witness testimony, and then entered an order finding the defendant not guilty and discharging him. The district court reversed, ruling that a trial judge has no authority to adjudicate guilt or innocence after accepting a nolo contendere plea. On review by certiorari, the Florida Supreme Court examined whether the trial court's actions barred further prosecution under double-jeopardy principles, emphasizing that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 requires a factual-basis inquiry only for guilty pleas and not for nolo contendere pleas, which admit the facts for purposes of the prosecution without contesting them.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Dalton Williams's conviction on one count of buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen heifers under Section 811.16, Florida Statutes (1973), after the trial court dismissed two counts and the jury acquitted on six others. Williams contended on appeal that he was entitled to the reduced misdemeanor punishment available under Section 811.17 when the underlying theft was not a felony and restitution was made, but the verdict's failure to specify property value made that determination impossible. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, prompting Supreme Court review due to conflict with Vaughn v. State and other precedents. The Court examined the interplay between the two statutes, noting that Vaughn required the jury to fix the value of stolen property to enable the lesser penalty and that Tidwell clarified restitution affects only punishment, not the offense's nature or jurisdiction.

criminal law

The case concerned truck owners who sought to enjoin the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services from requiring their trucks to stop at road-guard inspection stations for agricultural inspections under Sections 570.15 and 570.44(3), Florida Statutes, arguing the stops violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and equal protection even when no agricultural products were being transported. The trial court denied relief, finding the inspections reasonable exercises of state authority, and the district court affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, concluding that the mandatory stops for all trucks and trailers are a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect agriculture through disease control and grading, that the initial stop is not a search or unreasonable seizure, and that refusal triggers warrant requirements or other legal standards to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights.

business & regulatorycriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a challenge to Section 318.14(5), Florida Statutes, which allows a traffic infraction hearing official to impose a civil penalty up to $500 after a contested hearing, as opposed to the fixed $25 fine available by paying without a hearing. Appellant Levitz, charged with speeding, argued that the statute violated due process and equal protection by penalizing him for exercising his right to a hearing and confrontation of witnesses. The County Court denied the motion, found him guilty after a hearing, and imposed the standard fine plus costs. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statute constitutional because it offers an expedited compliance option akin to a plea bargain settlement, provides full due process rights at any requested hearing (including proof beyond a reasonable doubt), and does not impermissibly burden constitutional rights, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Colten v. Kentucky.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a Florida divorce judgment requiring the former husband to pay child support, alimony, mortgage costs, and attorney fees. After he failed to make payments and transferred his interest in the marital home, the trial court held him in civil contempt and imposed a jail sentence that could be purged by payment. The district court affirmed without requiring an explicit finding on ability to pay. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, holding that a contempt order for nonpayment must include an affirmative finding that the person either currently has the ability to comply or previously had it but lost it through their own fault or neglect. The court emphasized that such a finding is necessary to avoid punishing inability to pay and that the burden is on the defaulting party to show intervening circumstances beyond their control.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a territorial dispute over electric service to the Copeland Settlement area in Alachua County between Clay Electric Cooperative, a rural cooperative, and the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Electric, Water and Sewer Utilities Board, a municipal utility. The Florida Public Service Commission, exercising new statutory authority under Section 366.04(2)(e), ordered the parties to develop a territorial agreement and directed the Board to refrain from offering electric service or duplicating facilities in the area, based on factors including the utilities' expansion capabilities, the rural nature of the settlement, and needs for water and sewer service. The Board petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for certiorari review, challenging the Commission's jurisdiction and orders. The Court denied the petition, holding that the Commission's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence and that the orders met the essential requirements of law, including the statutory limits on resolving such disputes without improper delegation of authority.

business & regulatory