federal constitutional error in Florida

1985In my view, such could be said in the present case; and affirmance would be justified, but for our intermediate role in the judicial process, 2 about which I previously wrote while concurring in Boat-wright v. State, 452 So.2d 666, 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), wherein I discussed Hasting vis-a-vis State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984).

1985In my view, such could be said in the present case; and affirmance would be justified, but for our intermediate role in the judicial process, [2] about which I previously wrote while concurring in Boatwright v. State, 452 So.2d 666, 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), wherein I discussed Hasting vis-a-vis State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1984).

2014Id. at 1161 . 19 ■ As applied, the special master held that the non-parties’ communications are protected under Perry , the plaintiffs failing to show “a compelling need sufficient to deny” the non-parties’ constitutional privilege.

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2011Id.

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2011I would affirm the decision of the First District Court of Appeal on review; approve State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and disapprove Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2010Co., 347 So.2d 439, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). [6] A federal constitutional challenge to this statute was rejected in Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir.), rehearing en banc denied, 377 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2004). [7] Unless otherwise directed by the court, an investigation and recommendation is not required if the petitioner is a stepparent or blood relative.

2010A federal constitutional challenge to this statute was rejected in Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir.), rehearing en banc denied, 377 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2004). .

2010Co., 347 So.2d 439, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). [6] A federal constitutional challenge to this statute was rejected in Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir.), rehearing en banc denied, 377 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2004). [7] Unless otherwise directed by the court, an investigation and recommendation is not required if the petitioner is a stepparent or blood relative.

2010A federal constitutional challenge to this statute was rejected in Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir.), rehearing en banc denied, 377 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2004). .

2003Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano County, 480 U.S. 102, 108-09 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).

2003Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano County, 480 U.S. 102, 108-09 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).

2003Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano County, 480 U.S. 102, 108-09 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).

2003Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano County, 480 U.S. 102, 108-09 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).

2001A defendant who asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must show that the legal representation at issue fell below an objective standard of performance, and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2001A defendant who asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must show that the legal representation at issue fell below an objective standard of performance, and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2000Of course, a defendant may still mount an equal protection challenge where prosecutorial discretion is alleged to have been deliberately exercised pursuant to an "unjustifiable standard." Cf. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)(observing that, "[w]ithin the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, `the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation' so long as `the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as r

2000Of course, a defendant may still mount an equal protection challenge where prosecutorial discretion is alleged to have been deliberately exercised pursuant to an "unjustifiable standard." Cf. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)(observing that, "[w]ithin the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, `the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation' so long as `the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as r

2000Of course, a defendant may still mount an equal protection challenge where prosecutorial discretion is alleged to have been deliberately exercised pursuant to an "unjustifiable standard." Cf. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)(observing that, "[w]ithin the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, `the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation' so long as `the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as r

2000Of course, a defendant may still mount an equal protection challenge where prosecutorial discretion is alleged to have been deliberately exercised pursuant to an "unjustifiable standard." Cf. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)(observing that, "[w]ithin the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, `the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation' so long as `the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as r

1996Finally, the trustees argue that even if they were without authority to impose the bond under the terms of the lease, section 253.571 does not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of contract under the federal constitutional analysis set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. The Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 , 103 S.Ct. 697 , 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983).

1996Finally, the trustees argue that even if they were without authority to impose the bond under the terms of the lease, section 253.571 does not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of contract under the federal constitutional analysis set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. The Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 , 103 S.Ct. 697 , 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983).

1980Cir.1971); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1978). [2] Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination (4th ed. 1936).

1980Rather, we would apply the rule in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 711 (1967), that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." See also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236 (D.C.

1980Rather, we would apply the rule in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 711 (1967), that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." See also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236 (D.C.

1980Rather, we would apply the rule in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 711 (1967), that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." See also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236 (D.C.

1976The Court of Appeals merely noted that the attorney, on appeal, contended that “one of the many civil service attorneys appointed by a municipality is not a public official.” * * •* * * * * * a county (or in Louisiana parish) district attorney (Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 64 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , supra §2 (by implication); Moity v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 201 , 13 L.Ed.2d 339 , 85 S.Ct. 323 (revg per curiam 245 La. 546 , 159 So.2d 149 , a conviction on a charge of having defamed a district attorney, and citing Garrison v. Louisiana (US supra).