Latest 3 Cases: Cannon v. State (Civil Rights), Doty v. State (Criminal Law), Mungin v. State (Criminal Law)

The Investors’ Control of Their Investment Advisers. Who Has the Final Word?

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel discusses an emerging issue affecting financial advisers—when a client may exercise control over the actions of the adviser. Frankel relates the story of an investment adviser that did not follow the client’s orders to cease certain investments, at a cost of almost $5 million to the client. As Frankel explains, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) got involved, resulting in the investment adviser’s settlement for a significant payment to the client and other conditions.

Read More

Cannon v. State

Dockets: SC19-84, SC19-973

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying in part Marvin Cannon's initial postconviction motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 and denied Cannon's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Cannon was not entitled to relief on his claims. Cannon was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes and sentenced to death. Cannon later filed his initial motion for postconviction relief, asserting that he was entitled to resentencing under Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), that counsel was ineffective, and that the Department of Corrections' website reflected he was still serving a fifteen-year sentence for attempted robbery even though that conviction was vacated on direct appeal. The trial court agreed with Cannon's Hurst claim and vacated his death sentence but denied the remaining claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Cannon was not denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel and that the postconviction court properly denied Cannon's second claim. In his habeas petition, Cannon alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a procedurally barred claim.

Doty v. State

Docket: SC18-973

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of death imposed in connection with his conviction for the murder of a fellow prison inmate, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit and that Defendant's death sentence was proportionate in comparison to other capital cases. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors were sufficient to warrant a death sentence and that they outweighed the mitigating factors; (2) the trial court adequately considered Defendant's request for a nonbinding recommendation to the Department of Corrections and did not act under any mistaken impression of the law; and (3) Defendant's sentence was proportional.

Mungin v. State

Docket: SC18-635

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the postconviction court denying Appellant's third successive motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant's claims were procedurally barred as untimely. Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Fourteen years later, Appellant filed his third successive postconviction motion, asserting that the State committed a Brady violation and a Giglio violation and, alternatively, that defense counsel was ineffective and that newly discovered evidence was likely to produce an acquittal at retrial. The postconviction court denied the claims on the merits after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed but on other grounds, holding that the claims raised in Appellant's third successive postconviction motion were untimely because they because discoverable through due diligence more than a year before the motion was filed.