This page allows you to view summaries of selected opinions reported in the Supreme Court Opinions section of this issue of The Florida Law Weekly. If you wish to view the full text of an opinion, a link is provided. Also listed are orders granted review, with summaries of subject matter and dates of oral argument.

---

• LIMITATION OF ACTIONS-- TOLLING. The Court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled in a wrongful death action by the fraudulent concealment of the identity of the tortfeasor. FULTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR v. SULLIVAN. Opinion Filed September 25, 1997. Full Opinion at Supreme Court Opinions Section, page 578a.
• CRIMINAL LAW--PRISONERS--GAIN TIME. The Department of Corrections may not apply the statutory amendment allowing the elimination of an inmate's opportunity to earn incentive gain time for up to six months following a disciplinary infraction where the infraction occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment. BRITT v. CHILES. Opinion Filed September 25, 1997. Full Opinion at Supreme Court Opinions Section, page 583a.
• CRIMINAL LAW--PRISONERS--CONDITIONAL RELEASE. An inmate's last date of conditional release supervision should lawfully be calculated with reference only to sentences covered under the Conditional Release Program Act. Distinct sentences for offenses not covered by the Act that an inmate is serving concurrently with sentences for covered offenses do not subject an inmate to further supervision under the Act. Where an inmate completed sentences imposed for covered offenses in full before he was released from incarceration on an uncovered offense due to gain-time award, the remainder of the sentence for the uncovered offense was extinguished, and release on that charge should have been unconditional. PAROLE COMMISSION v. COOPER. Opinion Filed September 25, 1997. Full Opinion at Supreme Court Opinions Section, page 578a.

REVIEW GRANTED
Cases in which the Supreme Court of Florida has granted review. Subject matter is taken from Florida Law Weekly headnotes and may not directly reflect issues for review.

BANKS v. STATE, 801 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1DCA 2001). Supreme Court Case No. SC01-2733 (Banks v. State). Order dated September 9, 2002. No oral argument. Criminal law -- Post conviction relief -- Sentencing -- Defendant who was sentenced to low end of unconstitutional 1995 guidelines not entitled to be resentenced where sentence was imposed pursuant to negotiated term of years and not pursuant to guidelines, and where sentence received could have been imposed under 1994 guidelines -- Questions certified: Whether the change of law created by the Heggs decision should be deemed a “newly discovered fact” as contemplated by rule 3.850(b)(1), whereby an appellant may raise a Heggs-based claim for postconviction relief more than two years after the appellant’s judgment and conviction became final? Whether the change of law created by the Heggs decision should be deemed to apply retroactively, such that an appellant may raise a Heggs-based claim for postconviction relief more than two years after the appellant’s judgment and conviction become final?

JACOBS v. STATE, 800 So.2d 322 (Fla. 3DCA 2001). Supreme Court Case No. SC02-107 (Jacobs v. State). Order dated October 21, 2002. No oral argument. Criminal law -- Post conviction relief -- Ineffectiveness of counsel -- Failure to call witnesses -- No error to deny post conviction relief where defendant has failed to meet the two-pronged burden of showing deficient performance and prejudice -- Defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call two proposed alibi witnesses was facially insufficient to overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was within the range of reasonable professional assistance as such testimony would have been contradicted by ample evidence -- Counsel’s decision constituted sound tactical decision -- Summary denial of claim without evidentiary hearing is proper where claim is facially insufficient.

PATCHEN v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, 817 So.2d 854 (Fla. 3DCA 2002). Supreme Court Case No. SC02-1291 (Patchen v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). Order dated October 9, 2002. Oral argument set for January 6, 2003. Eminent domain -- Inverse condemnation -- Department of Agriculture -- Citrus canker eradication -- Question certified: Does the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Polk, 568 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1990), which held that the Department’s destruction of healthy commercial citrus nursery stock within 125 feet of trees infected with citrus canker did not compel state reimbursement, also apply to the Department’s destruction of uninfected, healthy noncommercial, residential citrus trees within 1900 feet of trees infected with citrus canker?