Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barber v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See § 948.06(8)(e), Fla. Stat. (stating “the court shall . . . [m]ake written findings”); see also Whittaker v. State, 223 So. 3d 270 , 273– 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“The written findings requirement of section 948.06(8)(e) is mandatory, not discretionary.” (quoting Barber v. State, 207 So. 3d 379, 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016))). 2024Per section 948.06(8)(e), if a trial court determines that a VFOSC has committed a violation of probation other than a failure to pay fines, costs, or restitution, the trial court “shall . . . [m]ake written findings as to whether or not the violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community.” § 948.06(8)(e)1., Fla. Stat. (2008). “[T]he written findings requirement of section 948.06(8)(e) is mandatory, not discretionary.” Reed v. State, 276 So. 3d 31 , 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Barber v. State, 207 So. 3d 379, 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)). | 5 | 5 |
KENNETH WHITTAKER v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen2 sentences2026See § 948.06(8)(e), Fla. Stat. (stating “the court shall . . . [m]ake written findings”); see also Whittaker v. State, 223 So. 3d 270 , 273– 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“The written findings requirement of section 948.06(8)(e) is mandatory, not discretionary.” (quoting Barber v. State, 207 So. 3d 379, 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016))). 2019Id. at 274 . | 2 | 5 |
Linville v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Contrary to Mr. McCray's position, "[t]he VFOSC designation is based on a defendant's criminal history, and does not depend on whether the trial court has made the required written findings pursuant to section 948.06(8)(e)." Whittaker, 223 So. 3d at 275; see also Barber, 207 So. 3d at 383 ("[T]he designation under the first part is applicable and has significance in the pretrial context before the case progresses to sentencing. 2019More specifically subsections (b) through (d) of section 948.06(8) "deal[] with provisions that pertain to the requirements that must be met to qualify a person as a [VFOSC]." Barber, 207 So. 3d at 383 . | 1 | 2 |
Arnone v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556 , 557–58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MICHAEL REED v. STATE OF FLORIDA
green
1 sentence2024Per section 948.06(8)(e), if a trial court determines that a VFOSC has committed a violation of probation other than a failure to pay fines, costs, or restitution, the trial court “shall . . . [m]ake written findings as to whether or not the violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community.” § 948.06(8)(e)1., Fla. Stat. (2008). “[T]he written findings requirement of section 948.06(8)(e) is mandatory, not discretionary.” Reed v. State, 276 So. 3d 31 , 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Barber v. State, 207 So. 3d 379, 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.