green
Positive treatment
Trending · 92 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 3×
85.0 score
“the state's failure to disclose the notes regarding hess is not a brady violation because the notes are not exculpatory or impeaching, and do not provide any basis to undermine our confidence in the verdict.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dontae R. Morris v. State of Florida
e will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, credibility of witnesses, or the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
& SC15-2005 Nelson Serrano v. State of Florida and Nelson Serrano v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
the state's failure to disclose the notes regarding hess is not a brady violation because the notes are not exculpatory or impeaching, and do not provide any basis to undermine our confidence in the verdict.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Florida v. Jacob John Dougan, Jr.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
hurst v. state
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gary Richard Whitton v. State of Florida
Giglio forbids the State “from knowingly presenting false testimony against the defendant.” Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 991 (Fla. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Walker
See Lukehart v. State, 70 So. 3d 503, 524 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Israel v. State, 985 So. 2d 510, 520 (Fla. 2008)); Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1015 (Fla. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Germaine Williams v. State of Florida
Weekly D2173 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 1, 2025) (quoting Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 997 (Fla. 2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. State of Florida
We must accept Appellant’s “factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record.” Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 997 (Fla. 2009) (citing Gonzalez v. State, 990 So. 2d 1017, 1024 (Fla. 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Bernard Bell v. State of Florida
To establish a Brady violation, Bell has the burden to show “(1) that favorable evidence, either exculpatory or impeaching, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and - 15 - (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 988 (Fla. 2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Katherine Farris v. State of Florida
“Where multiple errors are found, even if deemed harmless individually, the cumulative effect of such errors may deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.” Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1015 (Fla. 2009) (cleaned up).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael D. LoCascio v. the State of Florida
See McLin, 827 So. 2d at 956–57 (quoting Jones, 591 So. 2d at 915 ); Owen v. 9 State, 364 So. 3d 1017 , 1026 (Fla. 2023); Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 995 (Fla. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wingard v. Secretary Department of Corrections (Duval County)
“Where the alleged errors urged for consideration in a cumulative error analysis are individually either procedurally barred or without merit, the claim of cumulative error also necessarily fails.” Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1015 (Fla. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PARKS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
"A reasonable probability of a different result 'is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' " Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1001 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wagner v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
By failing to offer any evidence that the defendant was in fact not competent to proceed, the defendant has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the failure to have an evaluation to determine competency such “that confidence in the outcome is undermined.” Hurt v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 995 (Fla. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Khadafy Kareem Mullens
Accordingly, we view “the sentence of death in the context of the penalty phase evidence, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances found, and the previously undiscovered postconviction evidence.” State v. Bright, 200 So. 3d 710, 734 (Fla. 2016) (citing Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1013 (Fla. 2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marlin L. Joseph v. State of Florida
Cumulative Error (Claim 15) Joseph argues that numerous errors in this case, when considered cumulatively, deprived him of a fair trial and due process. “[W]here the alleged errors urged for consideration in a cumulative error analysis are individually ‘either procedurally barred or without merit, the claim of cumulative error also necessarily fails.’ ” Salazar v. State, 188 So. 3d 799, 818 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1015 (Fla. 2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALICIA MEDINA
“Where multiple errors are found, even if deemed harmless individually, ‘the cumulative effect of such errors’ may ‘deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.’” Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1015 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 202 (Fla. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marvin Cannon v. State of Florida & Marvin Cannon v. Mark S. Inch, etc.
“Where the postconviction court has conducted an evidentiary hearing, this Court will defer to the factual findings of the postconviction court so long as those findings are ‘supported by competent, substantial evidence, but will review the application of the law to the facts de novo.’ ” Mungin v. State, 141 So. 3d 138, 142 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 988 (Fla. 2009)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ernest L. Grandison v. State of Florida
Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 996 (Fla. 2009). 2 explained an expert would not have been helpful here; the jury had video and still shots from the video and could make its own decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Troy Merck, Jr. v. State of Florida
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The pertinent legal principle to apply to the facts found by the postconviction court on this matter is that “[a] qudy violation occurs ‘when the government fails to disclose evidence materially favorable to the accused.’ ” Hursi v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 988 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Youngblood v. West Virginid, 547 U.S. 867, 869-70 (2006)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Raymond Morrison, Jr.
Higbee represented Morrison at the motion to suppress hearing and Eler represented Morrison at the guilt phase and the penalty phase. - 10 - performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. at 689 . “[I]t is axiomatic that ‘counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1008 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Aren Duckett v. State of Florida
“Where several errors are identified, the Court ‘considers the cumulative effect of evidentiary errors and ineffective assistance [of counsel] claims together.’ ” Diaz v. State, 132 So. 3d 93, 118 (Fla. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1015 (Fla. 2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC16-1279 Robert Earl Peterson v. State of Florida and Robert Earl Peterson v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
As to the prejudice prong of Strickland, this Court has explained: With respect to those claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel specifically during the penalty phase, penalty-phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by “whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the miti-gators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Hurst [v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla. 2009)].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC14-2106 Thomas Bevel v. State of Florida and Thomas Bevel v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
As to the prejudice prong of Strickland, this Court has explained: - 15 - With respect to those claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel specifically during the penalty phase, penalty-phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by “whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Hurst [v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1013 (Fla. 2009)].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of Florida
(2×)
Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 1009 (Fla. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cohen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
“Where multiple errors are found, even if deemed harmless individually, ‘the cumulative effect of such errors,’ may ‘deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Raymond Bright
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In light of its significance, “a reasonable investigation into mental mitigation is part of defense counsel’s obligation where there is any indication that the defendant may have mental deficits.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1010 (Fla.2009) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC14-887 Neil K. Salazar v. State of Florida and Neil K. Salazar v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
Similarly, this Court granted a new penalty phase in Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1010-11 (Fla.2009), where evidence was presented during postconviction proceedings that Hurst had a low IQ, had borderline intellectual functioning, and information that Hurst’s mother drank heavily when pregnant with him, suggesting the possibility of organic brain damage based on fetal alcohol syndrome.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC14-1248 Tai A. Pham v. State of Florida & Tai A. Pham v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
As we have previously stated, “where the alleged errors urged for consideration in a cumulative error analysis are individually ‘either procedurally barred or without merit, the claim of cumulative error also necessarily fails.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (quoting Israel v. State, 985 So.2d 510, 520 (Fla.2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pinkney Carter v. State of Florida
Cf. Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (new penalty phase granted where trial counsel failed to investigate mental mitigation in spite of evidence that such examination was indicated, and where there was no countervailing “double-edged ■ sword”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC13-1785 Dwight T. Eaglin v. State of Florida and Dwight T. Eaglin v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As to the second requirement of prejudice, this Court has explained: With respect to those claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel specifically during the penalty phase, penalty-phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by “whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the miti-gators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Hurst [v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC13-706 Lamar Z. Brooks v. State of Florida and Lamar Z. Brooks v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
S.P., by and through her natural guardian R.P. v. Anthony Vecchio and the State of Florida
In order to show there has been such a violation however, “the defendant has the burden to show (1) that favorable evidence, either exculpatory or impeaching, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 988 (Fla.2009) (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Derrick McLean v. State of Florida
McLean has not established prejudice because he has failed to demonstrate that the additional information that he suffered from ADHD would have resulted in mitigation that would undermine “this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and ag-gravators found by the trial court.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009); see *513 also Bolin, 41 So.3d at 155 (“A court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel need not make a specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is clear …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Daniel Turner v. State of Florida
In Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000), this Court held that “strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.” *416 “Penalty phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Stewart v. S…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Toney Deron Davis v. State of Florida
To satisfy the materiality prong of Brady , the suppressed information must either be itself admissible or “lead to admissible substantive or impeachment evidence,” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1001 (Fla.2009), and the admissible evidence must then be of a nature that it undermines confidence in the jury’s verdict.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diaz v. State
“Where several errors are identified, the Court ‘considers the cumulative effect of evidentiary errors and ineffective assistance [of counsel] claims together.’” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (quoting Suggs v. State, 923 So.2d 419, 441 (Fla.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jennings v. State
“Penalty phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the miti-gators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mungin v. State
Where the postconviction court has conducted an evi-dentiary hearing, this Court will defer to the factual findings of the postconviction court so long as those findings are “supported by competent, substantial evidence, but will review the application of the law to the facts de novo.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 988 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. State
“Penalty phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and aggrava-tors found by the trial court.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wickham v. State
As we noted on direct appeal in Wickham, 593 So.2d at 194 , this was a “very strong case for aggravation.” Therefore, Wickham has not established prejudice because he has failed to demonstrate that calling any of these individuals as witnesses would have resulted in mitigation that would undermine “this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and aggrava-tors found by the trial court.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Conahan v. State
In other words, Conahan did not demonstrate that calling any of these individuals as witnesses would have resulted in mitigation that would “undermine[ ] this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and aggrava-tors found by the trial court.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Braddy v. State
“Where multiple errors are found, even if deemed harmless, ‘the cumulative effect of such errors’ may ‘deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005) (Brooks II)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. State
“Where multi- pie errors are found, even if deemed harmless individually, ‘the cumulative effect of such errors’ may ‘deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005)); see also Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 189 (Fla.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delhall v. State
The Court has held that “[w]here multiple errors are found, even if deemed harmless individually, ‘the cumulative effect of such errors’ may ‘deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005)); see also McDuffie, 970 So.2d at 328 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Douglas v. State
(2×)
“Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that ‘counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1008 (Fla.2009) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Parker v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“Penalty phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the miti-gators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendoza v. State
Thus, only “[w]here multiple errors are found, even if deemed harmless individually [has the Court stated that] ‘the.cumulative effect of such errors’ may ‘deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lukehart v. State
Because the additional testimony at the evidentiary hearing was largely cumulative, the failure to present the additional testimony does not undermine confidence in the outcome “when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hildwin v. State
In Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000), this Court held that “strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.” “Penalty phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Stewart v. State,…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Troy v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“Penalty phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty' phase evidence and the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Stewart v. State, 37 So.3d 243, 253 (Fla.2010) (quoting Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael R. POLLARD, Appellant,
v.
K.C. CROMWELL, INC., Etc., Et Al., Appellees
v.
K.C. CROMWELL, INC., Etc., Et Al., Appellees
SC07-2129.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sep 3, 2009.
John G. Crabtree and George R. Baise, Jr. of Crabtree and Associates, Key Biscayne, FL, for Appellant., Frank E. Brown of MacFarlane, Ferguson and McMullen, Tampa, FL, for Appel-lee.
Quince, Pariente, Lewis, Canady, Polston, Labarga, Perry.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
PER CURIAM.
We have for review K.C. Cromwell, Inc. v. Pollard, 974 So.2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), in which the Second District Court of Appeal declared that section 448.24(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003), was unconstitutionally vague. In so holding, the Second District explicitly agreed with and adopted the rationale of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Liner v. Workers Temporary Staffing, Inc., 962 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“Liner I ”), rev’d, 990 So.2d 473 (Fla.2008). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in the present case pending disposition of Liner v. Workers Temporary Staffing, Inc., 990 So.2d 473 (Fla.2008) (“Liner II”), in which we supplied a definite interpretation of the relevant statute and ultimately reversed the Fourth District’s decision in Liner I. Once Liner II was final, we issued an order in the present case directing appel-lee to show cause why we should not summarily reverse and remand the decision on appeal for reconsideration in light of Liner II. Upon consideration of appellee’s response and appellant’s reply thereto, we have determined to so proceed.
We therefore reverse the decision on appeal and remand to the Second District for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Liner II.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.