G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases ·
…section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, florida statutes (2002), is constitutional
at p. 722
✓
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases ·
…uncertainty caused by shelton v. secretary, department of corrections, 802 f.supp.2d 1289 (m.d.fla.2011)
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. State
See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which the federal court held that section 893.101 violates due process and is unconstitutional on its face); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Mogena v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Beckles v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which a federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Washington, — So.3d - (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Bryant v. State, 89 So.3d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 201…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gardner v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rose v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which a federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvarez v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding “section 89.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional,” and rejecting Shelton v. Secretary , Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lundy v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Page v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011), and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see"
Diaz v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see"
Piratova v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State
See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); accord Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by [Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see"
Diaz v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see"
Woods v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011)], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanco v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, Florida Statutes, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002) is constitutional); Comparato v. State, 419 So.2d 1131, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding that where pi’obation is not a permissible sentence alternative, sentencing defendant without a presentencing investigation report is not error).
discussed
Cited "see"
Denson v. State
See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); accord Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
Lucas v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
Hamilton v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
McIntyre v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
McIntyre v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
Holcombe v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Georges v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
Holcombe v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lescaille v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Zamora v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Zamora v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
LESCAILLE v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brockington v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brockington v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cruz v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Drummond v. State
(2×)
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 , 2011 WL 5554812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and cases cited.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jasper LITTLE, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Florida, Appellee
v.
the STATE of Florida, Appellee
3D11-2463.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov 16, 2011.
Jasper Little, in proper person., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Salter, Fernandez, Schwartz.
Cited by 77 opinions | Published
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Rejecting the holding of Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) and State v. Washington, No. F11-11019 (Fla. 11th Cir.Ct. Aug. 17, 2011), we hold, as we explicitly did in Taylor v. State, 929 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) [1] , that section 893.13, as[*723] amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional. Accord, e.g. Parker v. State, 77 So.3d 707, 2011 WL 5375081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (per curiam affirmance citing Taylor); Holcy v. State, — So.3d -, 2011 WL 5299328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (per curiam affirmance citing Flagg); Edwards v. State, 77 So.3d 676, 2011 WL 5061344 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (per curiam affirmance citing Taylor); Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Johnson v. State, 37 So.3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), rev. denied 51 So.3d 465 (Fla.2010); Miller v. State, 35 So.3d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Harris v. State, 932 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Tolbert v. State, 925 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Smith v. State, 901 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Burnette v. State, 901 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Accordingly, the order under review denying postconviction relief is
Affirmed.
1
. Taylor states:
The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine. We reject his primary contention for reversal that section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2003), which overruled Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), and eliminated knowledge of the unlawful nature of the offending substance as an element of the crime, is unconstitutional. As was correctly held in Tolbert v. State, 925 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2006), Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005),[*723] review denied, 915 So.2d 1198 (Fla.2005), Smith v. State, 901 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review denied, 928 So.2d 336 (Fla.2006), and Burnette v. State, 901 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), however, it is not.