David F. Honaker v. State (2016)

green · 18 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 7 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 7

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green State of Florida v. Brian Mitchell Lee (2017)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 6 citations in this opinion

Honaker v. State, 199 So. 3d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (An appellate court “may sua sponte address fundamental error apparent on the face of the record” in a pro se, post-Shelley, traveling/solicitation case.).

An appellate court “may sua sponte address fundamental error apparent on the face of the record” in a pro se, post-Shelley, traveling/solicitation case.

green J.B., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2020)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

We have long recognized the exception to this rule—that we “may sua sponte address fundamental error apparent on the face of the record.” J.V. v. State, 221 So. 3d 689 , 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Honaker v. State, 199 So. 3d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)).

green Roger N. Rosier v. State of Florida (2019)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

E.g., Honaker v. State, 199 So. 3d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Johnson v. State, 574 So. 2d 222, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Goss v. State, 398 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

green Brian Mitchell Lee v. State of Florida (2018)

Rule Authority · Fla.

See Mizner , 154 So.3d at 399 (concluding that "the unlawful use of a two-way communications device" in section 934.215"was subsumed within" the offenses of solicitation and traveling after solicitation); Honaker , 199 So.3d at 1070 (holding that convictions for unlawful use of a two-way communications device, solicitation, and traveling after solicitation based on the same conduct violated double jeopardy).

holding that convictions for unlawful use of a two-way communications device, solicitation, and traveling after solicitation based on the same conduct violated double jeopardy

green Phelps v. State (2018)

Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

See I.A. v. H.H. , 710 So.2d 162 , 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (explaining that "it is our duty to notice and correct ... fundamental errors even when they have not been identified by the parties"); J.V. v. State , 221 So.3d 689 , 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (concluding that fundamental error "can be addressed sua sponte"); Honaker v. State , 199 So.3d 1068 , 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("[W]e may sua sponte address fundamental error apparent on the face of the record."); Hendricks v. S…

"[W]e may sua sponte address fundamental error apparent on the face of the record."

green J v. A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2017)

Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Honaker v. State, 199 So.3d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“[W]e may. sua sponte address fundamental error apparent on the face of the record.”).

“[W]e may. sua sponte address fundamental error apparent on the face of the record.”

green MATTHEW JOSEPH DETTLE v. State of Florida (2017)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Honaker v. State, 199 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).