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.
18 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andujar-Ruiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2019We express no opinion about it or about whether Mr. Bolduc could amend his claim to allege something other than a mere failure to object to the reading of a standard instruction, if that is in fact all the record bears out. -5- 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("We conclude that ignorance of the law on an issue that was pertinent to the overall presentation of Adams' defense meets the first prong of Strickland."); cf. Andujar-Ruiz v. State, 205 So. 3d 803, 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that appellate counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge inaccurate instruction based on 2014 amendments | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See White, 926 So.2d at 474 ; Cloud, 801 So.2d at 964 . | 1 | 1 |
Al-Hakim v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See id. at 837 . | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Mills v. State, 840 So.2d 464, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("Generally, un-excused absences from required therapeutic programs constitute willful violations of probation.") (quoting Marcano v. State, 814 So.2d 1174 , 1176 *928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2008"Claims of this nature are cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief." Brown v. State, 589 So.2d 987, 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see Austin v. State, 826 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (addressing, as a matter of fundamental error, the claim that the trial court erroneously denied the defendant the assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing but rejecting it on the merits because a full Faretta [1] hearing was conducted). | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. Stategreen1 sentence2008"Claims of this nature are cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief." Brown v. State, 589 So.2d 987, 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see Austin v. State, 826 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (addressing, as a matter of fundamental error, the claim that the trial court erroneously denied the defendant the assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing but rejecting it on the merits because a full Faretta [1] hearing was conducted). | 1 | 1 |
Marcano v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Mills v. State, 840 So.2d 464, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("Generally, un-excused absences from required therapeutic programs constitute willful violations of probation.") (quoting Marcano v. State, 814 So.2d 1174 , 1176 *928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Jeffries v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Jeffries v. State, 797 So.2d 573 (Fla.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Maddox v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See generally Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000) (holding that an appellate court may, on direct appeal, correct as fundamental error an unpreserved sentencing error which is patent and serious). [5] The Fifth District apparently agreed with the Adams analysis. 2000See generally Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000) (holding that an appellate court may, on direct appeal, correct as fundamental error an unpreserved sentencing error which is patent and serious). [5] The Fifth District apparently agreed with the Adams analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Cannon v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Thomas v. State, 745 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(holding that it was a violation of double jeopardy to impose a concurrent 30-year sentence under the violent career criminal statute, section 775.084(1)(d), Florida Statutes, with a 15-year term of imprisonment under the Act)(citing Adams ). 2000See Thomas v. State, 745 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(holding that it was a violation of double jeopardy to impose a concurrent 30-year sentence under the violent career criminal statute, section 775.084(1)(d), Florida Statutes, with a 15-year term of imprisonment under the Act)(citing Adams ). | 1 | 1 |
Maddox v. Stategreen2 sentences1991Teer v. State, 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pringal v. State, 564 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (While two violations of probation for the same offense have been held to be a valid ground for departure in Adams, "we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass and eliminate the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams. )"). 1991Teer v. State, 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pringal v. State, 564 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (While two violations of probation for the same offense have been held to be a valid ground for departure in Adams, "we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass and eliminate the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams. )"). | 1 | 1 |
| Chapman by and Through Chapman v. Garciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences1985The Court noted a number of reasons why the Adams test is preferable over Witherspoon , among them, present-day capital sentencing juries are no longer invested with unlimited discretion in choice of sentence, the statements in the Witherspoon footnotes were dicta, and the Adams standard is in accord with the traditional reasons for excluding jurors. 105 S.Ct. at 851 . 1985The Court noted a number of reasons why the Adams test is preferable over Witherspoon , among them, present-day capital sentencing juries are no longer invested with unlimited discretion in choice of sentence, the statements in the Witherspoon footnotes were dicta, and the Adams standard is in accord with the traditional reasons for excluding jurors. 105 S.Ct. at 851 . | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Beck v. State
green
1 sentence2016See White, 926 So.2d at 474 ; Cloud, 801 So.2d at 964 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Newsome v. State
neutral
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bloodworth v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Palmore v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Taylor v. State
neutral
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Alfonso v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Nichols v. State
neutral
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Brinson v. State
neutral
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Chambers v. State
neutral
1 sentence2000See Barge v. State, 763 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Nichols v. State, 755 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Palmore v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 627666 (Fla. 1st DCA May 17, 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Taylor v. State, 755 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 424053 (Fla. 1st DCA April 20, 2000); Brinson v. State, 751 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, - So.2d -, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sawyer v. Gable
green
1 sentence1998The trial court has authority to provide for recovery of property after termination of a criminal case, Sawyer v. Gable, 400 So.2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and the court had jurisdiction to entertain Adams’ request. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Burdick v. State
green
1 sentence1992The cause is further remanded for resentencing of Adams pursuant to Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Holmes v. Redland Const. Co.
green
2 sentences1991Teer v. State, 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pringal v. State, 564 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (While two violations of probation for the same offense have been held to be a valid ground for departure in Adams, "we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass and eliminate the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams. )"). 1991Teer v. State, 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pringal v. State, 564 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (While two violations of probation for the same offense have been held to be a valid ground for departure in Adams, "we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass and eliminate the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams. )"). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Pringal v. State
neutral
2 sentences1991Teer v. State, 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pringal v. State, 564 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (While two violations of probation for the same offense have been held to be a valid ground for departure in Adams, "we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass and eliminate the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams. )"). 1991Teer v. State, 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pringal v. State, 564 So.2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (While two violations of probation for the same offense have been held to be a valid ground for departure in Adams, "we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass and eliminate the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams. )"). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Lambert v. State
green
2 sentences1990Id. 1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Adams v. State
green
2 sentences1989While this reason had previously been held to be a valid ground for departure under Adams v. State, 490 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1986), again we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass, and to eliminate, the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams ). 1989While this reason had previously been held to be a valid ground for departure under Adams v. State, 490 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1986), again we read the language in Ree to mean what it states and to encompass, and to eliminate, the Adams exception (although the opinion in Ree does not cite or discuss Adams ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Adams v. Sommers green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Adams v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Herring v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Herring v. Florida 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.