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.
21 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roma v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The first charge constituted a modified Allen charge in response to a jury indication of deadlock. *417 See Roma, 785 So.2d at 1272 (directing foreperson to continue deliberations was arguably a modified Allen charge); Thomas, 748 So.2d at 978 (where “the jurors informed the judge they were deadlocked” and “the judge repeatedly asked them to continue deliberating ... and urged them to reach a unanimous verdict,” the “judge’s statements actually constituted a modified Allen instruction”). 2007Roma v. State, 785 So. 2d 1269, 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). | 2 | 3 |
Oyola v. Stategreen1 sentence2025As an initial matter, Allen misstates this Court’s precedents. - 31 - He asserts that the failure to expressly evaluate each proposed mitigator “constitutes fundamental error” that warrants “a new appeal, or . . . a new penalty phase.” But this Court has found that a significant enough Campbell error—where that error was raised on direct appeal—warranted a remand “for the limited purpose of . . . providing this Court with a revised sentencing order.” Oyola v. State, 99 So. 3d 431, 447 (Fla. 2012), receded from in part by Rogers v. State, 285 So. 3d 872 , 890 (Fla. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez-Alberto v. Stategreen1 sentence2025This Court has said that “Edwards did not grant any substantive rights to defendants.” Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 126 So. 3d 193, 210 (Fla. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Nunez v. Allengreen2 sentences2018Id. at 555, 557 . 2018See Nunez , 194 So.3d at 559 . | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The propriety of “every Allen charge issue must be decided upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding an individual case.” Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970, 977 (Fla.1999). 2015The first charge constituted a modified Allen charge in response to a jury indication of deadlock. *417 See Roma, 785 So.2d at 1272 (directing foreperson to continue deliberations was arguably a modified Allen charge); Thomas, 748 So.2d at 978 (where “the jurors informed the judge they were deadlocked” and “the judge repeatedly asked them to continue deliberating ... and urged them to reach a unanimous verdict,” the “judge’s statements actually constituted a modified Allen instruction”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lockettgreen1 sentence2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
Warren v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Phillips v. State, 839 So.2d 893, 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Warren v. State, 980 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Phillips v. State, 839 So.2d 893, 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Warren v. State, 980 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Garcia v. State, 21 So.3d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding trial court’s colloquy of defendant during trial established that he consulted with his attorney about the decision, was satisfied with his counsel’s advice, and knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify at trial); Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807 (Fla.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bryangreen2 sentences1999See State v. Bryan, 290 So.2d 482 (Fla.1974) (trial judge's modified instruction was a balanced charge which encouraged neither acquittal nor conviction and stated that no juror was to abandon his conscientious convictions; therefore it was not error); State v. Roberts, 616 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (trial judge's comments to the jury, after six and one-half hours of jury deliberations, that it was very important yet not essential to reach a verdict on that day did not impermissibly coerce the guilty verdict); Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (even if defendant had 1999See State v. Bryan, 290 So.2d 482 (Fla.1974) (trial judge's modified instruction was a balanced charge which encouraged neither acquittal nor conviction and stated that no juror was to abandon his conscientious convictions; therefore it was not error); State v. Roberts, 616 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (trial judge's comments to the jury, after six and one-half hours of jury deliberations, that it was very important yet not essential to reach a verdict on that day did not impermissibly coerce the guilty verdict); Tejeda-Bermudez v. State, 427 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (even if defendant had | 1 | 1 |
Robert Allan Cornell, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. State of Iowa, Appellant/cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences1999Kirk v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 678 F.2d 723, 727 (7th Cir.1982); Cornell v. Iowa, 628 F.2d 1044, 1047 (8th Cir.1980); Ellis v. Reed, 596 F.2d 1195, 1197, 1200 (4th Cir.1979). [3] Compare Lewis v. State, 369 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (reversing for new trial where trial court's modified Allen charge made reference to single juror who voted against conviction), with McElrath v. State, 516 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that judge's remarks to jury following Allen instruction, while not proper, were not so egregious as to amount to fundamental error). [4] Allen v. United States 1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1 |
United States of America Ex Rel. John Kirk v. Director, Department of Corrections, State of Illinoisgreen1 sentence1999Kirk v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 678 F.2d 723, 727 (7th Cir.1982); Cornell v. Iowa, 628 F.2d 1044, 1047 (8th Cir.1980); Ellis v. Reed, 596 F.2d 1195, 1197, 1200 (4th Cir.1979). [3] Compare Lewis v. State, 369 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (reversing for new trial where trial court's modified Allen charge made reference to single juror who voted against conviction), with McElrath v. State, 516 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that judge's remarks to jury following Allen instruction, while not proper, were not so egregious as to amount to fundamental error). [4] Allen v. United States | 1 | 1 |
| Floyd Leon Watson v. State of Alabamagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bruce E. Ellis v. Amos E. Reed, Secretary of Corrections, and the Attorney General of the State of North Carolinagreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blessinggreen2 sentences1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh 1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1 |
| State v. DiGuiliogreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Harold Lee Dealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2004In the present case, the trial court denied Allen's claim, finding that under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the claim did not satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland because Allen's "arguments lack merit and would not have changed the outcome of the trial." The supreme court in Thompson concluded that prejudice can be established upon a "showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." 796 So.2d at 515 . 2004In the present case, the trial court denied Allen's claim, finding that under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the claim did not satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland because Allen's "arguments lack merit and would not have changed the outcome of the trial." The supreme court in Thompson concluded that prejudice can be established upon a "showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." 796 So.2d at 515 . | 2 | 1994–2004 |
Allen v. State
green
2 sentences2002The Allen defendant was also sentenced to pay a “contribution to court improvement fund in sum of $250.” 508 So.2d at 360 . 2002The Allen defendant was also sentenced to pay a "contribution to court improvement fund in sum of $250." 508 So.2d at 360 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Rubi v. State
green
2 sentences2015Thus, “[i]n giving an Allen instruction, á trial court *416 must avoid: 1) coercive deadlines; 2) threats of marathon deliberations; 3) pressure for. the surrender of conscientiously held beliefs; and 4) any implication of a false duty to decide.” Rubi, 952 So.2d at 633 . 2015Thus, “[i]n giving an Allen instruction, á trial court *416 must avoid: 1) coercive deadlines; 2) threats of marathon deliberations; 3) pressure for. the surrender of conscientiously held beliefs; and 4) any implication of a false duty to decide.” Rubi, 952 So.2d at 633 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jones v. Florida Parole Commission
green
2 sentences2013In Jones , the supreme court, applying the Allen analysis, concluded that Kalway and section 95.11(5)(f) did not apply to habeas corpus petitions filed to challenge parole revocation matters. 48 So.3d at 708 . 2013In Jones , the supreme court, applying the Allen analysis, concluded that Kalway and section 95.11(5)(f) did not apply to habeas corpus petitions filed to challenge parole revocation matters. 48 So.3d at 708 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lott v. State
green
1 sentence2011See Garcia v. State, 21 So.3d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding trial court’s colloquy of defendant during trial established that he consulted with his attorney about the decision, was satisfied with his counsel’s advice, and knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify at trial); Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807 (Fla.2006). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bolin v. State
green
1 sentence2004In the present case, the trial court denied Allen's claim, finding that under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the claim did not satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland because Allen's "arguments lack merit and would not have changed the outcome of the trial." The supreme court in Thompson concluded that prejudice can be established upon a "showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." 796 So.2d at 515 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Holmes v. State
green
2 sentences2002In Holmes v. State, 710 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the trial court did not give an Allen instruction when a jury came back after two hours and 13 minutes of deliberation. 2002In Holmes v. State, 710 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the trial court did not give an Allen instruction when a jury came back after two hours and 13 minutes of deliberation. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Heggs v. State
green
1 sentence2001As to Allen’s claim that he is entitled to additional gain-time credit due to the court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), we affirm the trial court’s order denying relief without prejudice to Allen’s pursuing his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Clements v. State
green
1 sentence2001Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Cambareri v. State
green
1 sentence2001See Thomas (court's repeated statements to continue deliberations constituted a modified Allen instruction); Cambareri v. State, 746 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (judge's statement that he would permit deadlocked jury thirty minutes to continue deliberations constituted a modified Allen charge). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Montoya v. Scott
green
1 sentence1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gregorio Jiminez v. E.R. Myers, Warden, Attorney General of California
green
1 sentence1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Pace v. State
green
1 sentence1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences1999Kirk v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 678 F.2d 723, 727 (7th Cir.1982); Cornell v. Iowa, 628 F.2d 1044, 1047 (8th Cir.1980); Ellis v. Reed, 596 F.2d 1195, 1197, 1200 (4th Cir.1979). [3] Compare Lewis v. State, 369 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (reversing for new trial where trial court's modified Allen charge made reference to single juror who voted against conviction), with McElrath v. State, 516 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that judge's remarks to jury following Allen instruction, while not proper, were not so egregious as to amount to fundamental error). [4] Allen v. United States 1999Kirk v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 678 F.2d 723, 727 (7th Cir.1982); Cornell v. Iowa, 628 F.2d 1044, 1047 (8th Cir.1980); Ellis v. Reed, 596 F.2d 1195, 1197, 1200 (4th Cir.1979). [3] Compare Lewis v. State, 369 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (reversing for new trial where trial court's modified Allen charge made reference to single juror who voted against conviction), with McElrath v. State, 516 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that judge's remarks to jury following Allen instruction, while not proper, were not so egregious as to amount to fundamental error). [4] Allen v. United States | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Rickerson green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Tejeda-Bermudez v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Erick Orlando Locks v. G.W. Sumner, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Roberts green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Allen v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| White v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Boogaard
green
2 sentences1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh 1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Green
green
2 sentences1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh 1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Roberts neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Baker green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Sharplin v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| McElrath v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Lowenfield v. Phelps green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Bussey
green
2 sentences1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh 1999Priest, Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 A.L.R.3d 769 (1977). [6] See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 ; Montoya, 65 F.3d at 414 ; Jiminez, 40 F.3d at 980 ; Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d at 406 ; Cornell, 628 F.2d at 1048 ; Ellis, 596 F.2d at 1200 ; State v. Roberts, 131 Ariz. 513 , 642 P.2d 858 (1982); People v. Green, 91 Ill.App.3d 1085 , 47 Ill.Dec. 590 , 415 N.E.2d 595 (Ct.1980); Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.1956); Wh | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Lewis v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Popple v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Rodriguez v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| United States v. James Parker Carter green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| United States v. Laura, Priscilla Dominguez green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Fidel Garcia-Trigo v. United States green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| United States v. Nora Rodriguez-Demaya green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| United States v. Richard J. Frontero green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| David McChesney v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Gerrold Duane Davis v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| United States v. Howard Horsley, Ronald Miller A/K/A Bugs. Appeal of Howard Horsley green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.