In AULT v. STATE, No. SC07-2130 (Fla. Sep. 30, 2010), the Court held that when considering imposition of the death penalty, the rejection by a trial court of statutory mental health mitigation did not require the trial court to reject brain damage as an independent nonstatutory mitigating factor. Here the sentencing order demonstrated that evidence of brain damage was based on uncontroverted objective testing. The court provided no evidence that would support a rejection of these findings. Here, because brain damage was proved by the greater weight of the evidence, there was no competent, substantial evidence to support its rejection, and brain damage is mitigating in nature, the Court held that the trial court's rejection of this proposed mitigating circumstance was error. Slip opinion at 18-19.
In STATE v. HAMPTON, No. 2D09-391 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 1, 2010), the DCA reversed the order of the trial court granting a judgment of acquittal after entry of judgment and sentence. The Defendant had arranged a sale of cocaine to an undercover deputy sheriff. At trial, the State did not present adequate evidence concerning the chain of custody of the crack cocaine that was delivered to the undercover deputy and later tested by a forensic chemist who was also employed by the sheriff. Nevertheless, when the State moved the cocaine into evidence, the Defendant's attorney did not object. The DCA held that once the cocaine was in evidence without objection, the Defendant was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal based on a weakness in the chain of custody.
In KWAPIL v. STATE, No. 2d10-437 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep. 29, 2010), the DCA held that the mailbox rule applicable to 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence filed by an inmate.
