By Amy Dilday


In May, the supreme court released no opinions in civil cases, only opinions in criminal,
attorney discipline, and rules amendments cases. In two criminal cases, the court rejected
prisoners’ requests to extend the Supreme Courts of the United States’ holding in Roper v.
Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), which bars execution of persons under the age of 18 at the time
of the offense. One defendant asked that it be extended to age 21 and the other to age 19.


Criminal:


Melton v. State, No. SC2022-1394 (Fla. May 4, 2023). The supreme court affirmed the
summary denial of a defendant’s sixth successive postconviction motion. The court rejected the
defendant’s claim that new scientific studies amounted to newly discovered evidence. It noted:
“‘[N]ew opinions or research studies based on a compilation or analysis of previously existing
data and scientific information; are not generally considered newly discovered evidence.” Slip
op. at 5 (quoting Dillbeck v. State, 357 So. 3d 94, 99 (Fla. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting
Henry v. State, 125 So. 3d 745, 750 (Fla. 2013)). The court also rejected the defendant’s
argument that the holding in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), which bars execution of
persons under the age of 18 at the time of the offense, should be extended to age 21. The court
restated its determination that it will not extend the age of ineligibility until the United States
Supreme Court does so.


Orme v. State, No. SC2022-0338 (Fla. May 18, 2023). In this appeal, a defendant
appealed the death sentence imposed at his second resentencing from a 1992 conviction of first-
degree murder. The supreme court rejected the defendant’s Lackey defense that a 30-year delay
between the offense and his current resentencing violated his right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment. The court noted that it had rejected similar claims, “including cases
involving death-row stays that exceeded . . . thirty years.” Slip op. at 6 (collecting cases). It also
rejected the defendant’s claim that the trial court fundamentally erred in failing to find its
“sufficiency and weighing” determinations of aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances
“beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 7. The court acknowledged that at least one aggravating
factor must be found beyond a reasonable doubt but held that section 941.141 does not impose a
“beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement on the sufficiency and weighing determinations.


Sliney v. State, No. SC2022-0700 (Fla. May 25, 2023). Considering arguments similar
to those made in Melton, supra, the supreme court affirmed the summary denial of a defendant’s
successive postconviction challenge to his death sentence. For the same reasons expressed in
Melton, the court rejected the defendant’s plea for an extension of the holding in Roper to the
defendant, who was 19 years old at the time of his offense.


Arbelaez v. State, No. SC2015-1628 (Fla. May 25, 2023). In this appeal from the denial
of his sixth postconviction motion, and on petition for habeas corpus, the supreme court rejected
the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to relief based on his intellectual disability. The
supreme court stated that its 2016 decision in Hall v. State, 201 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2016), “does not

apply retroactively.” Slip op. at 3–4. Therefore, it provided the defendant, convicted in 1991, no
relief. As to his petition for habeas corpus, the court noted that it “has consistently rejected as
without merit the claim that chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida, [which amended section 921.141
to require a unanimous jury determination for a death sentence], created a substantive right that
must be retroactively applied.” Slip op. at 4.


Rules Amendments:
In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.013, SC2022-1462 (Fla. May 4, 2023). This
opinion amends Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.013 to, among other things, clarify that “if
a child is being detained” for an act of domestic violence for 48 hours, “the detention order must
include specific written findings that respite care . . . is not available,” and that the child should
be placed into secure detention. The amendment went into effect on July 1, 2023.


In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.420 & 2.533, No. SC2023-
0014 (Fla. May 11, 2023). The supreme court made technical, and only minor substantive
changes to. Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420, among other
things, to include documents relating to the settlement of a minor’s or ward’s claims as
confidential. The court created new rule 2.533, which names persons who are authorized to
administer oaths in court. These amendments went into effect on July 1, 2023, but the court
accept comments on them through July 25, 2023.


About the Author: Florida Bar Board Certified in appellate practice, Amy is a member
of Englander Fisher’s litigation team in St. Petersburg.