Ortiz-Salgado v. Watkins, Warden, 537 U.S. 1050 (2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Ortiz-Salgado v. Watkins, Warden, 537 U.S. 1050 (2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hernandez-Alberto v. State (fla, 2004-09-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Hernandez-Alberto v. State
Fla. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mora v. State, 814 So.2d 322, 327 (Fla.) ("In situations where there is conflicting expert testimony regarding the defendant's competency, it is the trial court's responsibility to consider all the evidence relevant to competency and resolve the factual dispute."), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1050 , 123 S.Ct. 603 , 154 L.Ed.2d 526 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Raul A. Campoverde v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
Likewise, article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution does not “embody a right of one accused of crime to representation both by counsel and by himself.” Id. at 340 ; see also Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322, 328 (Fla.) (“[T]here is no constitutional right for hybrid representation at trial.”), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1050 , 123 S.Ct. 603 , 4 154 L.Ed.2d 526 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. McMillan
Or. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
E.g., U.S. v. Wooten, 377 F3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir), cert den, _US_, 125 S Ct 510 (2004) (restitution that does not exceed value of victim’s injury does not violate the rule of Apprendi), U.S. v. Ross, 279 F3d 600, 609-10 (8th Cir 2002) (even if applicable, Apprendi not violated because restitution in fall amount of victim’s losses does not exceed “statutory maximum”); see also U.S. v. Syme, 276 F3d 131, 158-59 (3rd Cir), cert den, 537 US 1050 (2002) (Apprendi inapplicable to federal restitution statute because no “statutory maximum” prescribed).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Wooten
10th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Ross, 279 F.3d 600, 609-10 (8th Cir.2002) (holding Apprendi did not apply to a restitution order because the MVRA does not prescribe a maximum restitution amount and because the order did not exceed the scope of the indictment); United States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031, 1042 (6th Cir.2001) (holding Apprendi did not apply to a restitution order in an amount equal to the value of the stolen property); see also, e.g., United States v. Syme, 276 F.3d 131, 159 (3d Cir.) (holding Apprendi does not apply to restitution orders under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ortiz-Salgado
v.
Watkins, Warden
02-6498.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 2, 2002.
537 U.S. 1050
Published

537 U.S. 1050

ORTIZ-SALGADO
v.
WATKINS, WARDEN, ET AL.

No. 02-6498.

Supreme Court of United States.

December 2, 2002.

1

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.

2

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 42 Fed. Appx. 246.