Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
Headline: Florida Supreme Court Affirms Sexual Battery Convictions, Denies Postconviction Relief
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Florida Supreme Court affirms convictions, finding postconviction claims procedurally barred and due process claims lacking prejudice.
- Raise all claims, especially ineffective assistance of counsel, in the initial postconviction motions.
- Be aware of deadlines and procedural rules for appeals and postconviction relief.
- If challenging delays, meticulously document the timeline and demonstrate substantial prejudice.
Case Summary
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, decided by Florida Supreme Court on April 1, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case consolidates three appeals by Michael A. Tanzi challenging his convictions for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence, that Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred, and that his due process rights were not violated by the delay in his postconviction proceedings. The court also affirmed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The court held: The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct because it was relevant to prove motive, intent, and identity, and its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.. Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred because he failed to raise them in his initial motion for postconviction relief.. The delay in adjudicating Tanzi's postconviction motion did not violate his due process rights, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay.. The trial court properly denied Tanzi's motion for postconviction relief because his claims lacked merit and were procedurally barred.. The appellate court correctly affirmed the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and postconviction relief.. This decision reinforces the application of procedural bars in Florida postconviction relief proceedings, emphasizing the importance of timely raising claims. It also clarifies the standards for admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct and the requirements for proving due process violations due to delays in postconviction adjudication.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
The Florida Supreme Court upheld Michael Tanzi's convictions for sexual battery and lewd conduct. The court ruled that his arguments about his lawyer not doing a good enough job were too late to be heard, and that a long wait for his appeal didn't harm him. The court also found that the evidence used against him was properly allowed in court.
For Legal Practitioners
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that Tanzi's ineffective assistance of counsel claims were procedurally barred for failure to raise them on prior appeal. The court also rejected Tanzi's due process claim regarding delay in postconviction proceedings, finding no substantial prejudice. The admission of evidence was also affirmed.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the procedural hurdles in postconviction relief. The Florida Supreme Court applied de novo review to the procedural bar of ineffective assistance of counsel claims and abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings. It reinforces that claims not raised at the proper stage are waived, and due process claims based on delay require a showing of substantial prejudice.
Newsroom Summary
Florida's highest court has upheld convictions for sexual battery and lewd conduct against Michael Tanzi. The court ruled that Tanzi's legal challenges were either too late to be considered or lacked sufficient proof of harm, affirming the lower court's decisions.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct because it was relevant to prove motive, intent, and identity, and its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.
- Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred because he failed to raise them in his initial motion for postconviction relief.
- The delay in adjudicating Tanzi's postconviction motion did not violate his due process rights, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay.
- The trial court properly denied Tanzi's motion for postconviction relief because his claims lacked merit and were procedurally barred.
- The appellate court correctly affirmed the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and postconviction relief.
Key Takeaways
- Raise all claims, especially ineffective assistance of counsel, in the initial postconviction motions.
- Be aware of deadlines and procedural rules for appeals and postconviction relief.
- If challenging delays, meticulously document the timeline and demonstrate substantial prejudice.
- Consult with experienced postconviction counsel to navigate complex procedural requirements.
- Understand that courts strictly enforce procedural bars for untimely claims.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
The standard of review is de novo for legal questions and abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings. The Florida Supreme Court reviews legal conclusions, such as whether a claim is procedurally barred, under a de novo standard, meaning it gives no deference to the lower court's decision. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, meaning the lower court's decision will be upheld unless it was unreasonable or arbitrary.
Procedural Posture
This case reached the Florida Supreme Court on consolidated appeals from the denial of Michael A. Tanzi's motions for postconviction relief. Tanzi challenged his convictions for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel rests with the defendant, Michael A. Tanzi. To succeed, he must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced his defense. For claims of due process violations due to delay in postconviction proceedings, the defendant must demonstrate substantial prejudice.
Legal Tests Applied
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Elements: Counsel's performance was deficient (fell below an objective standard of reasonableness). · Counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense (a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different).
The court found Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to be procedurally barred. This means the claims were not raised at the appropriate time in the lower courts, and therefore, the Florida Supreme Court would not consider their merits.
Due Process
Elements: A significant delay in postconviction proceedings. · Substantial prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.
The court found that while there was a delay in the postconviction proceedings, Tanzi failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice. Therefore, his due process rights were not violated by the delay.
Statutory References
| Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 | Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence — This rule governs motions for postconviction relief, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations. Tanzi's claims were evaluated under this rule, and the court found them to be procedurally barred or lacking in merit. |
| Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853 | Motion to Withdraw Plea — While not directly the basis of the appeal, this rule is relevant to postconviction relief proceedings concerning pleas. The opinion does not explicitly mention this rule but the context of challenging convictions implies its potential relevance in underlying proceedings. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are procedurally barred if they were not raised on appeal from the denial of prior postconviction relief.
A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on a delay in proceedings must demonstrate substantial prejudice.
The trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence, as it was relevant and its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.
Remedies
Affirmed the denial of Michael A. Tanzi's motion for postconviction relief.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Raise all claims, especially ineffective assistance of counsel, in the initial postconviction motions.
- Be aware of deadlines and procedural rules for appeals and postconviction relief.
- If challenging delays, meticulously document the timeline and demonstrate substantial prejudice.
- Consult with experienced postconviction counsel to navigate complex procedural requirements.
- Understand that courts strictly enforce procedural bars for untimely claims.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You were convicted of a crime years ago and believe your lawyer did a poor job, but you never raised this issue during your initial appeals or postconviction motions.
Your Rights: You have the right to challenge your conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, but you must raise these claims at the appropriate time. If you wait too long or fail to follow procedural rules, your claims may be 'procedurally barred' and the court won't consider their merits.
What To Do: Consult with a new attorney immediately to review your case and determine if any postconviction relief options remain available, understanding that procedural bars may apply.
Scenario: You are awaiting a decision on your postconviction relief motion, and it has been significantly delayed, potentially impacting your ability to gather evidence or recall facts.
Your Rights: You have a right to due process, which includes timely proceedings. However, to prove a due process violation due to delay, you must show that the delay caused you 'substantial prejudice'.
What To Do: Document the timeline of your postconviction proceedings and consult with your attorney about filing a motion to expedite or a motion to address the delay, clearly articulating any substantial prejudice you have suffered.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to challenge my conviction years after it happened if I think my lawyer was bad?
It depends. You can challenge a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, but you must do so within specific timeframes and procedural rules. If you wait too long or don't raise the issue correctly in earlier court proceedings, your claim may be 'procedurally barred' and the court won't hear it.
This applies to Florida state courts, but similar rules exist in other jurisdictions.
Can I win a case just because my postconviction appeal took a long time?
No, not usually. While significant delays can raise due process concerns, you typically need to prove that the delay caused you 'substantial prejudice' – meaning it significantly harmed your case or ability to present evidence. Simply waiting a long time is often not enough.
This principle is applied in Florida state courts, but the standard for prejudice may vary slightly in other jurisdictions.
Practical Implications
For Defendants in criminal cases seeking postconviction relief
This ruling reinforces that defendants must strictly adhere to procedural rules and timelines when raising claims like ineffective assistance of counsel. Failure to do so can result in their claims being dismissed without a review of the merits, making it crucial to act promptly and correctly.
For Attorneys handling criminal appeals and postconviction matters
Practitioners must be diligent in raising all potential claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, at the earliest appropriate stage of postconviction proceedings to avoid procedural bars. They must also be prepared to demonstrate substantial prejudice if challenging delays in the process.
Related Legal Concepts
A writ of habeas corpus is a legal order demanding that a public official (like ... Appellate Procedure
The set of rules and practices governing how cases are reviewed by higher courts... Preservation of Error
The legal principle that an issue must be properly raised and argued in the tria...
Frequently Asked Questions (33)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (5)
Q: What is Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections about?
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections is a case decided by Florida Supreme Court on April 1, 2025.
Q: What court decided Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections?
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections was decided by the Florida Supreme Court, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections decided?
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections was decided on April 1, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections?
The citation for Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What was Michael A. Tanzi convicted of?
Michael A. Tanzi was convicted of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed these convictions.
Legal Analysis (14)
Q: Is Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections published?
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections cover?
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections covers the following legal topics: Postconviction relief, Ineffective assistance of counsel, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850, Procedural default, Harmless error, Motion to suppress evidence, Strickland v. Washington standard.
Q: What was the ruling in Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections. Key holdings: The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct because it was relevant to prove motive, intent, and identity, and its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.; Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred because he failed to raise them in his initial motion for postconviction relief.; The delay in adjudicating Tanzi's postconviction motion did not violate his due process rights, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay.; The trial court properly denied Tanzi's motion for postconviction relief because his claims lacked merit and were procedurally barred.; The appellate court correctly affirmed the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and postconviction relief..
Q: Why is Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections important?
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This decision reinforces the application of procedural bars in Florida postconviction relief proceedings, emphasizing the importance of timely raising claims. It also clarifies the standards for admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct and the requirements for proving due process violations due to delays in postconviction adjudication.
Q: What precedent does Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections set?
Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections established the following key holdings: (1) The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct because it was relevant to prove motive, intent, and identity, and its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice. (2) Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred because he failed to raise them in his initial motion for postconviction relief. (3) The delay in adjudicating Tanzi's postconviction motion did not violate his due process rights, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay. (4) The trial court properly denied Tanzi's motion for postconviction relief because his claims lacked merit and were procedurally barred. (5) The appellate court correctly affirmed the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and postconviction relief.
Q: What are the key holdings in Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections?
1. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct because it was relevant to prove motive, intent, and identity, and its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice. 2. Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred because he failed to raise them in his initial motion for postconviction relief. 3. The delay in adjudicating Tanzi's postconviction motion did not violate his due process rights, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay. 4. The trial court properly denied Tanzi's motion for postconviction relief because his claims lacked merit and were procedurally barred. 5. The appellate court correctly affirmed the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and postconviction relief.
Q: What cases are related to Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections?
Precedent cases cited or related to Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections: State v. Tanzi, 179 So. 3d 279 (Fla. 2015); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Spaziano, 702 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1997).
Q: What did Michael A. Tanzi argue in his appeals?
Tanzi argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, that his due process rights were violated by delays in postconviction proceedings, and challenged the admission of certain evidence. The Florida Supreme Court addressed these claims.
Q: Why did the court deny Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel?
The court found that Tanzi's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred. This means he did not raise these issues at the proper time in the lower courts, so the Florida Supreme Court would not consider their merits.
Q: Did the delay in Tanzi's postconviction proceedings violate his rights?
The court acknowledged a delay but found that Tanzi did not demonstrate 'substantial prejudice' resulting from it. Therefore, his due process rights were not violated by the delay.
Q: Was the evidence admitted at Tanzi's trial allowed correctly?
Yes, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the evidence, finding it was relevant and its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.
Q: What does 'procedurally barred' mean in this case?
It means that Tanzi's arguments about his lawyer's performance were not presented to the court in the correct way or at the correct time according to court rules. Because of this procedural failure, the court did not rule on the substance of his claims.
Q: What is 'postconviction relief'?
Postconviction relief is a legal process where a convicted person asks a court to review their case after the direct appeals are over. They might seek this relief based on new evidence, claims of ineffective counsel, or other constitutional violations.
Q: What is the standard of review for evidentiary rulings?
The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion. This means the appellate court will uphold the trial court's decision unless it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections affect me?
This decision reinforces the application of procedural bars in Florida postconviction relief proceedings, emphasizing the importance of timely raising claims. It also clarifies the standards for admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct and the requirements for proving due process violations due to delays in postconviction adjudication. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What should I do if I believe my lawyer was ineffective years after my conviction?
You should consult with a new attorney specializing in postconviction relief as soon as possible. They can assess if your claims are timely and advise on navigating procedural rules to avoid them being barred.
Q: How can I prove 'substantial prejudice' due to a delay in my case?
You need to show how the delay specifically harmed your ability to defend yourself, such as lost evidence, faded memories of key witnesses, or inability to locate crucial documents. Simply stating the delay occurred is insufficient.
Q: What are the consequences of a claim being 'procedurally barred'?
If a claim is procedurally barred, the court will not consider the actual merits or substance of the claim. It's like not getting to argue your case because you missed a deadline or filed the wrong paperwork.
Q: Are there time limits for filing postconviction relief motions in Florida?
Yes, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 generally requires motions to be filed within two years of the judgment becoming final, though exceptions exist. Tanzi's claims were barred for reasons beyond just the initial time limit.
Historical Context (2)
Q: What is the history of rules regarding ineffective assistance of counsel claims?
The right to effective assistance of counsel is rooted in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, recognized by the Supreme Court in landmark cases like Strickland v. Washington (1984), which established the two-prong test used today.
Q: How have procedural bars evolved in postconviction law?
Procedural bars have developed to ensure finality in judgments and encourage defendants to raise issues promptly. Courts balance the need for finality with the constitutional imperative to correct fundamental errors.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections?
The docket number for Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections is SC2025-0371 & SC2025-0372, & SC2025-0424. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is the role of the Florida Supreme Court in reviewing postconviction cases?
The Florida Supreme Court reviews decisions from lower courts regarding postconviction relief. It ensures that legal standards are correctly applied and constitutional rights are protected, often addressing complex procedural issues like those in Tanzi's case.
Q: What is the difference between a direct appeal and a postconviction relief motion?
A direct appeal challenges the conviction or sentence based on errors that occurred during the trial or sentencing. A postconviction motion typically raises issues that are not apparent from the trial record, such as ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- State v. Tanzi, 179 So. 3d 279 (Fla. 2015)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
- State v. Spaziano, 702 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1997)
Case Details
| Case Name | Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections |
| Citation | |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-04-01 |
| Docket Number | SC2025-0371 & SC2025-0372, & SC2025-0424 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 15 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the application of procedural bars in Florida postconviction relief proceedings, emphasizing the importance of timely raising claims. It also clarifies the standards for admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct and the requirements for proving due process violations due to delays in postconviction adjudication. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Admissibility of prior bad acts evidence (sexual misconduct), Ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Procedural bar for postconviction relief, Due process rights in postconviction proceedings, Appellate review of evidentiary rulings, Appellate review of postconviction relief denials |
| Jurisdiction | fl |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Michael A. Tanzi v. State of Florida; Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections & Michael A. Tanzi v. Secretary, Department of Corrections was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Admissibility of prior bad acts evidence (sexual misconduct) or from the Florida Supreme Court:
-
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
Florida court upholds conviction, admitting prior 'bad acts' evidenceFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-23
-
Armando Arce v. Chief Judge Timothy D. Osterhaus
Judicial immunity shields judge from civil suit over alleged due process violationsFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-23
-
In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Substance Use Terminology
Florida Supreme Court Approves Amendments to Substance Use Terminology RulesFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-16
-
Joseph Zieler v. State of Florida
Florida Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Plaintiff's Constitutional ClaimsFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-16
-
Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida & Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida
Appellate Court Upholds Vehicle Search and ConvictionsFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-15
-
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Florida Supreme Court Approves Amendments to Appellate RulesFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-09
-
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Florida Supreme Court · 2026-03-19
-
In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Professionalism Expectations
Florida Supreme Court · 2026-03-19