Florida Decisions

The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has filed an out of cycle report of proposed rule amendments in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(e). Court have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 2(a), Fla. Const.
After reviewing the comments and the committee's proposals, court adopt the proposals filed by the committee, with the exception noted below. The major substantive changes are discussed in this article.

Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett and Frappier, et al., seek review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 896 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash, 835 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Court limit our review to the question of law upon which jurisdiction was granted, and hold that the litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, statutory as well as common law. Accordingly, court quash the contrary decision of the First District and remand for further proceedings consistent with our holding.
Given the precedent established by Levin, court hold that the litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common law torts or statutory violations. Accordingly, court approve the decision in Boca Investors, quash the decision of the First District herein, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.

Court review Perry v. State, 846 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal followed Tillman v. State, 807 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2006), which was pending review in our Court, and cited as contrary authority Taylor v. State, 740 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Court have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1981). The issue is whether section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which prohibits the use of force to resist an arrest, applies apart from arrest scenarios.
Court quash the Fourth District's decision because it is contrary to our construction of section 776.051(1) in Tillman. The Fourth District relied on the Fifth District's decision in Tillman, which we later quashed, for the proposition that the use of force against a known police officer extends to illegal stops, searches, and detentions. See Perry, 846 So. 2d at 587. Court expressly rejected this view in Tillman, and cannot permit the same erroneous interpretation of section 776.051(1) to stand here. However, we decline to decide whether an arrest under section 776.051(1) encompasses post-arrest intake procedures such as the strip search in this case. Neither the Fourth District in this case nor this Court in Tillman addressed this issue. This matter, as well as a separate jury instruction issue raised by Perry, are for the Fourth District to address in the first instance under the changed legal landscape of our decision in Tillman.

A decision regarding (1) intentionally touching the victim's genital area or the clothing covering it, contrary to section 800.04(5), Florida Statutes (1999); (2) intentionally touching the victim in a lewd or lascivious manner by kissing the victim's neck, contrary to section 800.04(6), Florida Statutes (1999); (3) intentionally touching the victim in a lewd or lascivious manner by rubbing penis on the victim's stomach area, contrary to section 800.04(6), Florida Statutes (1999); and (4) intentionally exposing genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner in the presence of the victim, contrary to section 800.04(7), Florida Statutes (1999).

The Supreme Court Interpreter's Committee has filed a petition asking the Court to expedite adoption of Florida Rules for Certification and Regulation of Court Interpreters and new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.073, Appointment of Interpreters for Non-English-Speaking Persons, in response to the recent enactment of chapter 2006-253, Laws of Florida. Court adopt the new rules on an emergency basis, under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(a). See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Supreme Court Interpreter's Committee has filed a petition asking the Court to expedite adoption of Florida Rules for Certification and Regulation of Court Interpreters and new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.073, Appointment of Interpreters for Non-English-Speaking Persons, in response to the recent enactment of chapter 2006-253, Laws of Florida. Court adopt the new rules on an emergency basis, under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(a). See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

Appellant a prisoner under a sentence of death, for first-degree murder, appeals an order of the trial court denying motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Court affirm the trial court's denial of rule 3.850 relief.

Appellant a prisoner under a sentence of death, for first-degree murder, appeals an order of the trial court denying motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Court affirm the trial court's denial of rule 3.850 relief.

A decision regarding medical negligence and ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirms the trial court's conclusions that Dr. Upson did not miss signs of mental retardation or organic brain damage. The petitioner in fact received a professional, competent and appropriate mental health evaluation for use in aid of his defense.

Court recognize that the PIP statute is unique. It expressly abolished a traditional common-law right by limiting the recovery available to car accident victims. In exchange, the statute made PIP insurance compulsory and allowed recovery regardless of fault.

Court extended Heuring to allow the admission of similar fact evidence in nonfamilial sexual battery cases where the identity of the defendant is not an issue. Court concluded that because the credibility of the victim â€

Held that section 90.404(2)(b) Florida Statute(2001) comports with the requirements of due process of law when used as a conduit for evidence that corroborates the victim's testimony that the crime occurred rather than to prove the identity of the alleged perpetrator.

Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act does not preempt a municipality from using its home rule powers to enact an ordinance that authorizes the seizure and impoundment of vehicles used in the commission of certain misdemeanor offenses. Therefore, Court quash the decision of the Fourth District and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus.