State v. Potts, 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Potts, 526 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2011–2024 · …the state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here. at p. 63 ✓
25 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2024-02-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Smith v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Stephen C. Hanf v. State of Florida (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Yisrael v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here.
discussed Cited "see" The Florida Bar v. Weisser (2×)
Fla. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Bar v. Weisser, 526 So.2d 63, 64-65 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited "see" PWG v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally State v. Potts, 526 So.2d 63 (Fla.1988), approving, 526 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (consideration of unproven criminal charges at sentencing violates substantive due process); Reese v. State, 639 So.2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (consideration of "unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct" at sentencing "violates fundamental due process"); Epprecht v. State, 488 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (consideration at sentencing of prior charges *1207 of which defendant has been acquitted violates due process).
discussed Cited "see" P.W.G. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally State v. Potts, 526 So.2d 63 (Fla.1988), approving, 526 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (consideration of unproven criminal charges at sentencing violates substantive due process); Reese v. State, 639 So.2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (consideration of “unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct” at sentencing “violates fundamental due process”); Epprecht v. State, 488 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (consideration at sentencing of prior charges of which defendant has been acquitted violates due process).
cited Cited "see" In Interest of DM
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Potts v. State, 526 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 526 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited "see" EL v. State
Fla. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Potts, 526 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited "see" E.L. v. State
Fla. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Potts, 526 So.2d 63 (Fla.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Willie POTTS, Jr., Appellee.
71765.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug 31, 1988.
526 So. 2d 63
Barkett.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #20,740 of 633,719
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (3)

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Lee Rosenthal and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Ellen Morris, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

BARKETT, Justice.

We have on appeal Potts v. State, 526 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which declared unconstitutional a portion of section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Jurisdiction is mandatory. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Having reviewed the entire record in this case, we have determined that the district court's decision below is an eminently correct statement of the law. The state through its criminal process may not penalize someone merely for the status of being under indictment or otherwise accused of a crime, as it has attempted to do here. We therefore approve and adopt the district court's opinion in its entirety as our own. Section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes (1985), is facially unconstitutional to the extent it purports to penalize a person who is under indictment with greater severity than one who is accused of no crime.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.