Galante Romar Phillips v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida

Galante Romar Phillips v. State of Florida

249 So. 3d 596

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 19, 2018

DocketSC17-1150

StatusPublished

This text of 249 So. 3d 596 (Galante Romar Phillips v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Galante Romar Phillips v. State of Florida, 249 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on appeal from an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. 1 We hereby dismiss this appeal because the guilt phase issues were waived since they were not briefed by Phillips, and the penalty phase issues were mooted by the new penalty phase ordered by the trial court pursuant to Hurst v. State , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Because there will be a new penalty phase, it is inconsequential whether Phillips's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of intellectual disability at the previous penalty phase. As the State argued, Phillips may raise the issue of intellectual disability at the trial court prior to his new penalty phase proceedings. See Godwin v. State , 593 So.2d 211 , 212 (Fla. 1992) ("A case is 'moot' when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist." (citing Black's Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed. 1990) ) ).

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

1

We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on appeal from an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. 1 We hereby dismiss this appeal because the guilt phase issues were waived since they were not briefed by Phillips, and the penalty phase issues were mooted by the new penalty phase ordered by the trial court pursuant to Hurst v. State , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Because there will be a new penalty phase, it is inconsequential whether Phillips's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of intellectual disability at the previous penalty phase. As the State argued, Phillips may raise the issue of intellectual disability at the trial court prior to his new penalty phase proceedings. See Godwin v. State , 593 So.2d 211 , 212 (Fla. 1992) ("A case is 'moot' when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist." (citing Black's Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed. 1990) ) ).

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

1

We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 So. 3d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galante-romar-phillips-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack