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.
20 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2006 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Moreover, the conceded Carawan error in convicting and sentencing the defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm, Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988); Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987); Tundidor v. State, 541 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), becomes moot in *749 view of our reversal for a new trial on both the manslaughter and firearm possession charges. 1990Moreover, the conceded Carawan error in convicting and sentencing the defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm, Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988); Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987); Tundidor v. State, 541 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), becomes moot in *749 view of our reversal for a new trial on both the manslaughter and firearm possession charges. | 2 | 3 |
Sirmons v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Three dissenters, in an opinion by Justice Grimes, warned that "[t]he effect of this decision is to slide back into the Carawan analysis which the Legislature rejected in its 1988 amendment to section 775.021." Id. at 156-57 (Grimes, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). 2006Three dissenters, in an opinion by Justice Grimes, warned that "[t]he effect of this decision is to slide back into the Carawan analysis which the Legislature rejected in its 1988 amendment to section 775.021." Id. at 156-57 (Grimes, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1989I believe that the proper application of the Carawan analysis in this case is to: (1) find that there are not "specific, clear and precise statements of legislative intent ... regarding penalties," Carawan 515 So.2d at 165 ; Smith, 547 So.2d at 615 ; (2) find that the Blockburger test is satisfied such that a presumption of separate offenses is established; (3) conclude that a reasonable basis for a contrary intent exists for the reasons that the two sections seek to remedy the same evil [4] ; and (4) apply the rule of lenity to resolve the conflict in favor of the defendants as required in Ca 1989I believe that the proper application of the Carawan analysis in this case is to: (1) find that there are not "specific, clear and precise statements of legislative intent ... regarding penalties," Carawan 515 So.2d at 165 ; Smith, 547 So.2d at 615 ; (2) find that the Blockburger test is satisfied such that a presumption of separate offenses is established; (3) conclude that a reasonable basis for a contrary intent exists for the reasons that the two sections seek to remedy the same evil [4] ; and (4) apply the rule of lenity to resolve the conflict in favor of the defendants as required in Ca | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bartongreen2 sentences1989In State v. Barton, 523 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court held that when a Carawan analysis is applied and one of two convictions must fall, the conviction of the lesser crime must be set aside. 1989In State v. Barton, 523 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court held that when a Carawan analysis is applied and one of two convictions must fall, the conviction of the lesser crime must be set aside. | 1 | 3 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences1989See also Young v. State, 506 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“When two verdicts are returned for the same offense, it is the higher one that stands.”) Use of a firearm in the commission of a felony is a second degree felony 5 and aggravated assault is a third degree felony. 6 Thus, the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony is the higher offense and the aggravated assault convictions must fall. 1989See also Young v. State, 506 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“When two verdicts are returned for the same offense, it is the higher one that stands.”) Use of a firearm in the commission of a felony is a second degree felony 5 and aggravated assault is a third degree felony. 6 Thus, the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony is the higher offense and the aggravated assault convictions must fall. | 1 | 1 |
| Houser v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carawan v. State
red
2 sentences1999Rather, they are aimed at two different evils: the Legislature has chosen to separately punish attempts to kill and the act of physically injuring someone. [8] See *1115 Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987) (Shaw, J., dissenting) (disagreeing with the majority position that aggravated battery and attempted homicide address the same evil and cannot thus be punished separately). [9] The subsequent "overruling" of Carawan's analysis by the adoption of paragraph 775.021(4)(b) supports our conclusion that the imposition of convictions and sentences on all four counts is required. 1990In this appeal, appellant relies upon Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987) to support his double jeopardy claim. 1 This court, however, cannot undertake the Carawan analysis because the record on appeal is totally inadequate. | 7 | 1989–1999 |
Curry v. State
neutral
2 sentences1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con 1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Neal v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con 1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin 1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con 1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Cardwell v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con 1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con 1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Crayton v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con 1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con 1989Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla.1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citing Ca-rawan; no mention of double jeopardy); Curry v. State, 539 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction and affirmed two other felony convictions; no mention of double jeopardy); Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989) (reversed use of a firearm con | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Gordon v. State
green
2 sentences2006They were right. [6] In Gordon, 780 So.2d at 17 , we even revived Carawan's language, refusing to apply the degree-variant exception because "the separate evils [of the crimes] are sufficiently distinct that they warrant separate punishment." Id. at 23 . 2006They were right. [6] In Gordon, 780 So.2d at 17 , we even revived Carawan's language, refusing to apply the degree-variant exception because "the separate evils [of the crimes] are sufficiently distinct that they warrant separate punishment." Id. at 23 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Elias v. State
neutral
2 sentences1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Daophin
green
2 sentences1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Dukes v. State
green
2 sentences1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Daudt v. State
green
2 sentences1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991Gordon was decided on a carefully limited and reasoned elements analysis, without regard to the allegations and proofs adduced at trial, was approved by the supreme court in 89-Smith, and has been followed by the trial courts of this district and by this court in numerous cases. 15 Although the majority does not attempt to perform a complete Carawan analysis in pointing out Gordon’s errors, it attempts to justify receding from Gordon based upon several pr e-Gordon /pre-Carawan cases from this district (Dukes v. State, 464 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Daudt v. State, 368 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Tundidor v. State
neutral
2 sentences1990Moreover, the conceded Carawan error in convicting and sentencing the defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm, Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988); Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987); Tundidor v. State, 541 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), becomes moot in *749 view of our reversal for a new trial on both the manslaughter and firearm possession charges. 1990Moreover, the conceded Carawan error in convicting and sentencing the defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm, Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988); Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987); Tundidor v. State, 541 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), becomes moot in *749 view of our reversal for a new trial on both the manslaughter and firearm possession charges. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Green
red
2 sentences1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin 1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin | 1 | 1989–1989 |
LeCroy v. State
green
2 sentences1989Appellant relies upon a Carawan analysis. [3] However, in the post- Carawan case of LeCroy v. State, 533 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1988), the Supreme Court recently reconfirmed its earlier decision in State v. Enmund, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1985), wherein the Court specifically approved separate judgments and sentences for felony murder and the underlying felony. 1989Appellant relies upon a Carawan analysis. [3] However, in the post- Carawan case of LeCroy v. State, 533 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1988), the Supreme Court recently reconfirmed its earlier decision in State v. Enmund, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1985), wherein the Court specifically approved separate judgments and sentences for felony murder and the underlying felony. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Willingham v. State
green
2 sentences1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin 1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans
green
1 sentence1989Id. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gordon v. State
green
2 sentences1989Such intent language has not been cited to us, nor can we find such language obviating the need to progress to the second step of the Carawan analysis. (footnote omitted) 528 So.2d at 912 . 1989Such intent language has not been cited to us, nor can we find such language obviating the need to progress to the second step of the Carawan analysis. (footnote omitted) 528 So.2d at 912 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wheeler v. State
green
1 sentence1989In Wheeler v. State, 549 So.2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this court, en banc, reached the same ultimate conclusion reached in Gordon, but rejected its rationale. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Fletcher v. State
green
2 sentences1989This retroactivity issue has now been laid to rest by the Supreme Court in Smith, 547 So.2d at 615 . [6] Finally, I would agree with the majority opinion that we should recede from our earlier erroneous application of the Blockburger test in Fletcher v. State, 428 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). 1989This retroactivity issue has now been laid to rest by the Supreme Court in Smith, 547 So.2d at 615 . [6] Finally, I would agree with the majority opinion that we should recede from our earlier erroneous application of the Blockburger test in Fletcher v. State, 428 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Marion v. State
green
2 sentences1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin 1989I agree that the trial court erred in resentencing and recommitting Kelly to serve the incentive jail time and administrative jail time previously properly credited towards his 1978 offense. [6] NOTES [1] Marion v. State, 526 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [2] Willingham v. State, 535 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [3] Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (reversed use of a firearm, left standing an armed robbery conviction on strictly a Carawan analysis; no mention of double jeopardy in opinion); Kelly v. State, 552 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversed use of a firearm conviction citin | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Enmund green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
McKinnon v. State
green
2 sentences1989In McKinnon v. State, 523 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), this court held that the defendant could not be convicted and sentenced separately for the crime of using a firearm during the commission of a felony and the reclassified felony which included as one of its essential elements the use *70 of a firearm. 1989In McKinnon v. State, 523 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), this court held that the defendant could not be convicted and sentenced separately for the crime of using a firearm during the commission of a felony and the reclassified felony which included as one of its essential elements the use *70 of a firearm. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Shade v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.