19 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steinhorst v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982) (“[F]or an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”). 2017See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982) (“[F]or an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Johnson v. State, 9 So.3d 640, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Mantle v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Cf. Mantle v. State, 592 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that where the record reveals a defendant was misled by a statement made at a plea hearing by the judge or one or both attorneys — even when the misleading statement was a mistake — he should be permitted to withdraw his plea); Helms v. State, 573 So.2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that the voluntariness of a plea can be undercut if the decision to enter the plea is influenced by erroneous advice regarding the defendant’s appellate rights). | 1 | 1 |
Shade v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Shade, 59 So.3d at 1215-16 . | 1 | 1 |
Downs v. Mooregreen1 sentence2009“Appellate counsel is expected to raise those claims which are deemed to have the most merit, and is not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.” Brown, 846 So.2d at 1128 (citing Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906, 910 (Fla.2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Israel v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Israel v. State, 985 So.2d 510, 520 (Fla.2008) (“Because the alleged individual errors are without merit, the contention of cumulative error is similarly without merit.”). | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Stategreen1 sentence2006We denied Anderson's claim holding that "[w]hether a crime constitutes a prior violent felony is determined by the surrounding circumstances of the prior crime," and, therefore, "the trial court did not err in permitting the State to present evidence regarding the details of the attempted sexual batteries." Id.; see also Morgan v. State, 415 So.2d 6, 12 (Fla.1982) (holding that it was not error to allow the penalty phase jury to hear evidence that the defendant's previous conviction of second-degree murder was obtained pursuant to an indictment for first-degree murder). | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See McGee v. State, 684 So.2d 241, 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). *925 However, at the time his 1995 judgments and sentences became final, Anderson had no way of knowing that later the DOC would revoke the prison credit previously recognized. | 1 | 1 |
Bottoson v. Mooregreen1 sentence2003See Bottoson v. Moore, 833 So.2d 693 (Fla. 2002) (concluding that Bottoson was not entitled to relief under Ring ). | 1 | 1 |
Pagan v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 812 (Fla.2002) (holding that defendant's claim that inflammatory pictures were improperly introduced was not preserved because defense counsel failed to object to their introduction). | 1 | 1 |
Knox v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Knox v. State, 689 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Bain v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| DeMesme v. Stephensongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2017Anderson’s claims on direct appeal were: (1) the evidence is insufficient for first-degree murder; (2) the trial court erred in admitting collateral bad act evidence; (3) the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify concerning other traffic homicides; (4) the trial court erred in allowing nonre-sponsive opinion testimony as to the intent of the perpetrator; (5) the trial court erred in admitting inflammatory photographs during the guilt phase; (6) the trial court erred in denying Anderson’s motion for mistrial during closing argument; (7) the trial court erred in allowing the State t 2017Anderson’s claims on direct appeal were: (1) the evidence is insufficient for first-degree murder; (2) the trial court erred in admitting collateral bad act evidence; (3) the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify concerning other traffic homicides; (4) the trial court erred in allowing nonre-sponsive opinion testimony as to the intent of the perpetrator; (5) the trial court erred in admitting inflammatory photographs during the guilt phase; (6) the trial court erred in denying Anderson’s motion for mistrial during closing argument; (7) the trial court erred in allowing the State t | 3 | 2003–2017 |
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences2018Anderson v. State, 183 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). 4 In Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), the Fifth District determined that, per Hicks and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)c., it “lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider Vestal’s argument with regard to the plea proceeding because Vestal did not file a motion to withdraw her plea with the trial court.” Vestal, 50 So. 3d at 735 . 2018Anderson v. State , 183 So.3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Vestal v. State
green
2 sentences2018Anderson v. State, 183 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). 4 In Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), the Fifth District determined that, per Hicks and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)c., it “lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider Vestal’s argument with regard to the plea proceeding because Vestal did not file a motion to withdraw her plea with the trial court.” Vestal, 50 So. 3d at 735 . 2018Anderson v. State, 183 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). 4 In Vestal v. State, 50 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), the Fifth District determined that, per Hicks and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)c., it “lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider Vestal’s argument with regard to the plea proceeding because Vestal did not file a motion to withdraw her plea with the trial court.” Vestal, 50 So. 3d at 735 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018This Court stayed Anderson’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 2018This Court stayed Anderson’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2018This Court stayed Anderson’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 2018This Court stayed Anderson’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sedlak v. Smith
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Anderson’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hurst v. Florida
green
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Anderson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —:—, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Anderson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —:—, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida
red
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Anderson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Anderson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —:—, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cleveland v. Sharp
green
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Anderson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —:—, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Florida v. Hurst
red
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Anderson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Anderson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —:—, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Anderson v. State
green
1 sentence2017Anderson, 841 So.2d at 397 n.1. . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hibbard Ex Rel. Carr v. McGraw
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Anderson
neutral
1 sentence2016In affirming the trial court’s denial of Anderson’s motion for attorneys’ fees,,. the Fifth District stated that Anderson’s offer was unenforceable to recover attorneys’ fees because “the purpose behind the enactment of section 768.79 (i.e., to sanction a party for rejecting a presumptively reasonable proposal for settlement) would be ill-served_” Hilton Hotels, 153 So.3d at 416-17 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Burdick v. State
green
1 sentence2015We write only to address Anderson’s claim that his life sentence as a habitual felony offender is illegal under Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), because the resentencing judge mistakenly believed she had no discretion to decline to impose a life sentence. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Helms v. State
green
1 sentence2015Cf. Mantle v. State, 592 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that where the record reveals a defendant was misled by a statement made at a plea hearing by the judge or one or both attorneys — even when the misleading statement was a mistake — he should be permitted to withdraw his plea); Helms v. State, 573 So.2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that the voluntariness of a plea can be undercut if the decision to enter the plea is influenced by erroneous advice regarding the defendant’s appellate rights). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2009“Appellate counsel is expected to raise those claims which are deemed to have the most merit, and is not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.” Brown, 846 So.2d at 1128 (citing Downs v. Moore, 801 So.2d 906, 910 (Fla.2001)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Demars
green
1 sentence2009We reverse based on State v. Demars, 848 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), in which this court explained that strict compliance with the rule is not optional: [A] notice, not a motion, is required to trigger the expiration of recapture period. * * * Because the trial court is responsible for setting an immediate hearing, the notice must be brought to the court’s attention. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Milks v. State
green
1 sentence2004In its brief order denying Anderson's motion, the trial court cited to Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Givens v. State, 851 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Givens v. State
green
1 sentence2004In its brief order denying Anderson's motion, the trial court cited to Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Givens v. State, 851 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Jackson v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Castor v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Dionese v. City of West Palm Beach green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Sedlmayer 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.
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.