green
Positive treatment
11.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Dessaure v. State
See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfind-ing by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672 , 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally preclud…
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth Louis Dessaure v. State of Florida
See Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (determining that defendant who validly waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfinding by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 672 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So. 3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to conclude that a claim for Hurst relief after defendant waived penalty phase jury was equally precluded in the postconviction c…
cited
Cited "see"
Mark A. Twilegar v. State of Florida
See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 38-40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied. — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 672 , 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Edward Allen Covington v. State of Florida
See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16, 40 (Fla. 2016) (concluding that defendant who waived penalty phase jury was not entitled to relief under Hurst because a defendant “cannot subvert the right to jury factfinding by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 672 , 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017); see also Brant v. State, 197 So.3d 1051, 1079 (Fla. 2016) (relying on Mullens to deny Hurst relief in a.postconviction context where the defendant waived a penalty phase jury).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leo Louis Kaczmar, III v. State of Florida
(2×)
See Mullens v. State, 197 So.3d 16 (Fla. 2016) (finding that Hurst is not applicable to defendants who waived the right to a penalty phase jury), cert. denied, No. 16-6773, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 672 , 196 L.Ed.2d 557 , 2017 WL 69535 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jeremiah M. Rodgers v. State of Florida
See, e.g. , Mullens v. State , 197 So.3d 16 , 40 (Fla. 2016) (affirming the death sentence of a defendant who waived a penalty phase jury and explaining that a defendant "cannot subvert the right to jury factfinding by waiving that right and then suggesting that a subsequent development in the law has fundamentally undermined his sentence"), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 672 , 196 L.Ed.2d 557 (2017) ; Brant v. State , 197 So.3d 1051 , 1079 (Fla. 2016) (concluding that the Mullens Court's holding in the context of a direct appeal "necessarily preclude[s]" a defendant who waived a pena…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Khadafy Kareem MULLENS
v.
FLORIDA.
v.
FLORIDA.
No. 16–6773..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 2017.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.