Case Name: Galante Romar PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-07-19
Citations: 249 So. 3d 596
Docket Number: No. SC17-1150
Parties: Galante Romar PHILLIPS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 249
Pages: 596–596

Head Matter:
Galante Romar PHILLIPS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. SC17-1150
Supreme Court of Florida.
[July 19, 2018]
Frank Tassone of Tassone, Dreicer, & Hill, LLC, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Donahue, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

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