child custody cases mean that a court must obtain jurisdiction over the child for a term of 6 months…

rules of criminal procedure allow for a new trial within 10 days of a trial.   must be done within 10 days of a jury verdict.

family law appeal venue and jurisdiction is in county where mother has original custody

This term the Florida Supreme Court will review the search of a cell phone and numbers on the cell phone after the defendant was arrested

In a trafficking of cannabis case, the Third DCA of Florida ruled that when an officer has a warrant to enter and search premises, including a curtilage, and any cards, or temporary structures, within the area of the property, then officers may also search cars and mailboxes.  The officers can also seize items to show ownership of the items contained in the property.  The scope of a warrant may be extended to any containers that would reasonably contain items specified in the warrant.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the individual mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional.  Even though the federal court made this ruling, the individual mandate can be severed from the remainder of the health care acts reforms.  If the individual mandate is removed the remainder of the health care legislation may pass constitutional scrutiny legally operative after the mandate’s removal.

Under Florida cases, a criminal defense lawyer may file a motion to suppress evidence where an affidavit or report prepared by a police officer for search warrant includes evidence gathered in unlawful warrantless search but also included lawfully obtained evidence.  Even though the incriminating evidence may be a starting point for probable cause, the court is justified in granting the motion to suppress because the affidavit was made improperly and included evidence which violated the constitutional rights of the accused.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
William E. CLARK, Appellant,
v.
The ESTATE OF Johnie Vaden ELROD and H. Vernon Davids, Appellees.
No. 2D09–5480.
April 1, 2011.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 2011.
Background: Attorney moved to enforce charging lien against former client based on two separate time periods in which attorney represented former client in probate proceeding. The Circuit Court, Charlotte County, James Shenko and Elizabeth Adams, JJ., entered judgment awarding attorney fees. Former client appealed.

Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, Crenshaw, J., held that:
(1) attorney’s cause of action for breach of contract with respect to first period of representation accrued for limitations purposes when attorney-client relationship ended, and
(2) attorney was entitled to recover additional fees for second period of representation in quantum meruit.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Attorney’s breach of contract action against former client accrued for limitations purposes when attorney ended the attorney-client relationship with client, not when attorney filed his amended motion to enforce charging lien approximately seven and one-half years later. West’s F.S.A. § 95.031(1); West’s F.S.A. § 95.11(2)(b).

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Dexter RENTZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D10–1306.
July 1, 2011.
Background: Defendant appealed from decision of the Circuit Court, Orange County, Ted Coleman J., revoking his probation.

The District Court of Appeal held that probation officer’s hearsay testimony was insufficient, standing alone, to support the finding that defendant violated the conditions of his probation.

Reversed and remanded.

Testimony of probation officer, whose knowledge was based solely on hearsay without any independent corroboration, was admissible, but officer’s testimony was insufficient, standing alone, to support the finding that defendant violated the conditions of his probation based on the allegations that he had changed his residence without permission and falsely reported his residence to his probation officer.

Evidence did not support trial court’s finding that defendant violated condition of his probation by failing to pay costs and restitution, where trial court made no finding, and the evidence was lacking, that defendant willfully failed to pay.

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., and Paetra T. Brownlee of Brownstone, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the final judgment revoking his probation. Because the State relied exclusively on hearsay evidence to prove the violations of conditions one and three, and it failed to prove a willful violation of condition two, we reverse.

Appellant was accused of a violation of conditions one and three based on the factual allegation that he changed his residence without permission and falsely reported his residence to his probation officer. He denied that he had moved, maintaining that he still resided with his cousin at the approved residence. The State attempted to prove the violation through the testimony of the probation officer. However, his knowledge was based solely on hearsay without any independent corroboration. Although the trial court was correct in admitting the evidence over a hearsay objection, it erred in finding that this evidence was sufficient, standing alone, to support the finding that Appellant violated these conditions.

The trial court also erred in concluding that Appellant violated condition two of his probation for failing to pay costs and restitution because the trial court made no finding (and the evidence was lacking) that Appellant willfully failed to pay. On remand, the trial court should reinstate the probation or *756 impose non-prison sanctions pursuant to 948.05, Florida Statutes.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2011.
Rentz v. State
64 So.3d 755, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1430

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2011
STEVEN NIEDERKORN,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D10-3009
MELISSA TRIVINO,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 2, 2011.
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Theotis Bronson, Judge.
Robert L. Sirianni, Jr. and
Paetra T. Brownlee of Brownstone,
P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Steven Niederkorn timely appeals the denial of his petition for injunction for
protection against dating violence. Both he and the Appellee, Melissa Trivino, filed
petitions for protection against dating violence arising out of the same incident. At the
trial on the merits of both parties’ claims, Mr. Niederkorn advised the court that he had
no objection to the entry of Ms. Trivino’s injunction against him. Ms. Trivino, however,
objected to an injunction being entered against her, and the case proceeded to an
evidentiary hearing.
2
During the hearing, Mr. Niederkorn testified as to the events that occurred. The
court then asked Ms. Trivino if she had any questions for Mr. Niederkorn. She had no
substantive questions for him. The court then called Ms. Trivino as a witness and
examined her as to the events that had occurred and did not permit Mr. Niederkorn to
cross-examine her. The court then called Ms. Trivino’s sister to testify as to the events
that occurred and again did not permit Mr. Niederkorn to cross-examine the witness.
After the testimony of Ms. Trivino’s sister, the court denied Mr. Niederkorn’s injunction.
It is from that order that Mr. Niederkorn appeals.
This court has dealt with this subject in the past. We recognize that trial courts
are pressed for time and that typically on a domestic violence hearing day there are
numerous hearings that need to be heard. As a result, trial courts tend to move them
along quickly and expeditiously and sometimes by doing so deny litigants fundamental
due process.
In this case, Mr. Niederkorn was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing which
includes direct examination of witnesses, cross-examination of witnesses, and the
presentation of any other evidence. He was denied that right. See Ohrn v. Wright, 963
So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see also Pope v. Pope, 901 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA
2005). The final judgment denying Mr. Niederkorn’s petition for protection against
dating violence is reversed, and the case is remanded for a full evidentiary hearing in
accordance with section 741.30(5)(c), Florida Statutes.
REVERSED and REMANDED for full evidentiary hearing.
TORPY, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.