Department of Justice Once Again Proves Its Loyalty to the President, Not the Rule of Law

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the recent news that the Justice Department will seek dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn. Sarat suggests that because the decision does not seem to advance the fair administration of justice in this case, the court should take the unusual step of refusing to grant the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss.

Read More

Barringer v. Halkitis

Docket: SC19-1071

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court held that Jay Barringer's quo warranto petition filed in this case was a frivolous proceeding brought before the Supreme Court by a state prisoner and sanctioned Barringer by barring him from filing any further pro se requests for relief related to his criminal case. Barringer was convicted of one count of attempted sexual battery of a victim less than twelve years old and sentenced to twenty-five-years' imprisonment. In 2011, Barringer began filing petitions in the Supreme Court. The Court did not grant the relief sought in any of Barringer's filings. In the instant quo warranto petition Barringer challenged his conviction on the ground that the information was defective, a claim Barringer previously raised by way of a habeas petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition and found that Barringer abused the Court's limited judicial resources. The Court sanctioned Barringer by directing the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Barringer that are related to his criminal case, unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.

Franqui v. State

Docket: SC19-203

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's claim of intellectual disability, raised in successive motions for postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief. Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in two separate cases. After the United States Supreme Court decided Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), Appellant filed successive motions for postconviction relief in both of his capital cases, asserting that the circuit court's denials of his previous claims of intellectual disability were based on the court's improper interpretation of Florida's intellectual disability statute. The circuit court summarily denied the motions. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of intellectual disability. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's intellectual disability claim; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), or Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016).

Hicks v. State

Docket: SC19-1978

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied the instant mandamus petition filed by Hicks and sanctioned Hicks by barring him from filing any further pro se requests for relief related to his criminal case. Hicks was convicted of one count of lewd and lascivious conduct by a person over eighteen years of age on a victim under sixteen years of age. Since 2016, Hicks filed thirteen pro se requests for relief in the Supreme Court related to his criminal case. The Court did not grant the relief sought in any of Hicks' filings. In the instant petition, Hicks sought a writ of mandamus compelling the circuit court to comply with the requirements of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 by filing a copy of an order denying his second postconviction motion with the clerk of court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and found that Hicks abused this Court's limited judicial resources. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Hicks that are related to his criminal case, unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.