Lucas claim in Florida

2025This is consistent with Justice Thomas’s recent reiteration of the Lucas principle that “[a] regulation effects a taking . . . categorically whenever [it] . . . leaves land ‘without economically beneficial or productive options for its use.’” Bridge Aina Le‘a, LLC, 141 S. Ct. at 731 (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (quoting Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1018 ) (emphasis added); see also Lingle, 544 U.S. at 539 (reaffirming that under Lucas, “the complete elimination of a property’s value is the determinative factor”); Tahoe-Sierra Pres.

2025Again, in Lingle, the Court held that value is the key criteria in a Lucas analysis: “In the Lucas context, of course, the complete elimination of a property’s value is the determinative factor.” 544 U.S. at 539 (emphases added).

2025In another case cited by the majority for its theory that the takings analysis involves comparison of productive use rather than value, the court held that the trial court committed reversible error in “reason[ing] that value was relevant to but not dispositive of the Lucas inquiry.” Bridge Aina Leʻa, LLC v. Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, 950 F.3d 610, 628 (9th Cir. 2020).

2025In another case cited by the majority for its theory that the takings analysis involves comparison of productive use rather than value, the court held that the trial court committed reversible error in “reason[ing] that value was relevant to but not dispositive of the Lucas inquiry.” Bridge Aina Leʻa, LLC v. Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, 950 F.3d 610, 628 (9th Cir. 2020).

2024See Love v. State, 264 So. 3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

2024Id.

2013In Black v. State, 695 So.2d 459, 460-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), this court found a Lucas error in failing to instruct on excusable or justifiable homicide was not waived.

2013In Black v. State, 695 So.2d 459, 460-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), this court found a Lucas error in failing to instruct on excusable or justifiable homicide was not waived.

2011See Jimenez v. State, 994 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to give complete manslaughter instruction and the “fact that the defendant unsuccessfully tried to waive instructions on lesser offenses cannot be construed as a specific waiver of, or affirmative request to limit, the justifiable and excusable homicide instruction”); see also Reyes v. State, 924 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reversing second degree murder conviction where it was not clear from the record that defense counsel affirmatively agreed to exclude portion

2011See Jimenez v. State, 994 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to give complete manslaughter instruction and the “fact that the defendant unsuccessfully tried to waive instructions on lesser offenses cannot be construed as a specific waiver of, or affirmative request to limit, the justifiable and excusable homicide instruction”); see also Reyes v. State, 924 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reversing second degree murder conviction where it was not clear from the record that defense counsel affirmatively agreed to exclude portion

2003See id. [4] Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla. 1993). [5] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing as to Lucas's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during his guilt phase in 1977, and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his fourth penalty phase held in 1987, which became the subject of the direct appeals in Lucas IV and Lucas V. [6] Of the five claims decided without an evidentiary hearing, Lucas appeals only one, the trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Lucas has suffered cruel and unusual punishment as a result of the length o

2003See id. [4] Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla. 1993). [5] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing as to Lucas's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during his guilt phase in 1977, and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his fourth penalty phase held in 1987, which became the subject of the direct appeals in Lucas IV and Lucas V. [6] Of the five claims decided without an evidentiary hearing, Lucas appeals only one, the trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Lucas has suffered cruel and unusual punishment as a result of the length o

2003Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Lawrence v. State, 831 So.2d 121 (Fla.2002); Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 470 , 154 L.Ed.2d 359 (2002). *389 Because Lucas's claim is facially invalid, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Lucas an evidentiary hearing on the claim that his length of stay on death row has resulted in cruel and unusual punishment.

2003Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Lawrence v. State, 831 So.2d 121 (Fla.2002); Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 470 , 154 L.Ed.2d 359 (2002). *389 Because Lucas's claim is facially invalid, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Lucas an evidentiary hearing on the claim that his length of stay on death row has resulted in cruel and unusual punishment.

2003Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Lawrence v. State, 831 So.2d 121 (Fla.2002); Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 470 , 154 L.Ed.2d 359 (2002). *389 Because Lucas's claim is facially invalid, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Lucas an evidentiary hearing on the claim that his length of stay on death row has resulted in cruel and unusual punishment.

2001Id. at 871.

2001Id. at 871.