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 2 courts 1992–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Rowan v. State, 791 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). 1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 3 | 4 |
Linkous v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Our review in Pinacle was based upon conflict between the district court's holding and the holdings in Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (1993), and Hood v. State, 603 So.2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). 1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 2 | 3 |
Pinacle v. Stategreen2 sentences1996On motion for rehearing, the State argued that our decision in Pinacle v. State, 654 So.2d 908 (Fla.1995), overruled Singleton , which the district court had cited for the proposition that the absence of a contemporaneous objection to a Karchesky error does not preclude its independent review of such an issue. 1996On motion for rehearing, the State argued that our decision in Pinacle v. State, 654 So.2d 908 (Fla.1995), overruled Singleton , which the district court had cited for the proposition that the absence of a contemporaneous objection to a Karchesky error does not preclude its independent review of such an issue. | 1 | 3 |
Routenburg v. Stategreen2 sentences2002This court recognized in Routenburg v. State, 802 So.2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), that a Karchesky issue can be raised even after a defendant pleads guilty and violates probation. 2002See, e.g., Routenberg v. State, 802 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Jones v. State, 615 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); McGowan v. State, 586 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Yates v. State, 556 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 1 | 2 |
Boerstler v. Stategreen2 sentences1994We also reject the state's argument on rehearing that our decision is in conflict with Boerstler v. State, 622 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). 1994See Boerstler v. State, 622 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (affirming denial of 3.800(a) motion alleging Karchesky error where the defendant had agreed to a 19-year sentence and his plea agreement did not reflect that his plea was conditioned on the 19 years being within the sentencing guidelines: "Thus the sentence, imposed in accordance with a valid plea agreement, is not rendered illegal due to the circumstance that, because of a scoresheet error, it exceeded the actual guidelines range."); Perryman v. State, 608 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (affirming direct appeal alleging Karchesky error | 1 | 2 |
Rowan v. Stategreen2 sentences2001In Rowan v. State, 791 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), this court held that a Karchesky issue can be raised for the first time in a 3.800(a) motion, even after violations of probation. 2001Thus, Routenberg is entitled to raise the issue now. *362 Since the trial court has already acknowledged that the record cannot refute Routenberg's claims, this case must be reversed for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the victim sustained any physical injury. [2] See Rowan, 791 So.2d at 43-44 . | 1 | 1 |
Forehand v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Montague contends that the opposite is true; however, if he is correct, we never would have addressed the sufficiency of defense counsel's objection in Pinacle in the first place. [4] We have repeatedly held that absent an illegal sentence or an unauthorized departure from the sentencing guidelines, [5] only sentencing errors " apparent on the face of the record do not require a contemporaneous objection in order to be preserved for review." Taylor v. State, 601 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1992) (emphasis added); see also Merchant v. State, 509 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1987) (holding that trial court's erroneo | 1 | 1 |
McCalister v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Accord McCalister v. State, 664 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (concluding that Pinacle "requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve a Karchesky issue"). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Montague contends that the opposite is true; however, if he is correct, we never would have addressed the sufficiency of defense counsel's objection in Pinacle in the first place. [4] We have repeatedly held that absent an illegal sentence or an unauthorized departure from the sentencing guidelines, [5] only sentencing errors " apparent on the face of the record do not require a contemporaneous objection in order to be preserved for review." Taylor v. State, 601 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1992) (emphasis added); see also Merchant v. State, 509 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1987) (holding that trial court's erroneo | 1 | 1 |
Merchant v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Montague contends that the opposite is true; however, if he is correct, we never would have addressed the sufficiency of defense counsel's objection in Pinacle in the first place. [4] We have repeatedly held that absent an illegal sentence or an unauthorized departure from the sentencing guidelines, [5] only sentencing errors " apparent on the face of the record do not require a contemporaneous objection in order to be preserved for review." Taylor v. State, 601 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1992) (emphasis added); see also Merchant v. State, 509 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1987) (holding that trial court's erroneo | 1 | 1 |
Dailey v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Montague contends that the opposite is true; however, if he is correct, we never would have addressed the sufficiency of defense counsel's objection in Pinacle in the first place. [4] We have repeatedly held that absent an illegal sentence or an unauthorized departure from the sentencing guidelines, [5] only sentencing errors " apparent on the face of the record do not require a contemporaneous objection in order to be preserved for review." Taylor v. State, 601 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1992) (emphasis added); see also Merchant v. State, 509 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1987) (holding that trial court's erroneo | 1 | 1 |
| Kleshinski 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perryman v. State
green
2 sentences1995Because we conclude that Pinacle v. State, 654 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1995) (citing Perryman v. State, 608 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 621 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1993)), requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve a Karchesky issue, we affirm the order under review. 1995It argues that in Pinacle the supreme court "implicitly affirmed" Perryman v. State, 608 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 621 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1993), which held that in the absence of an appropriate objection, a Karchesky issue is not preserved for appellate review. | 6 | 1993–1996 |
State v. Montague
green
2 sentences2003In addition, since this was a negotiated plea case, a defendant must make a contemporaneous objection to an alleged Karchesky error. [1] See also State v. Montague, 682 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1996). 2003In addition, since this was a negotiated plea case, a defendant must make a contemporaneous objection to an alleged Karchesky error. [1] See also State v. Montague, 682 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1996). | 3 | 1996–2003 |
Hood v. State
green
2 sentences1996Our review in Pinacle was based upon conflict between the district court's holding and the holdings in Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (1993), and Hood v. State, 603 So.2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). 1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 2 | 1994–1996 |
Montague v. State
green
2 sentences1996Montague, 656 So.2d at 509 . 1996Montague, 656 So.2d at 509 . | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Pinacle v. State
neutral
2 sentences1996In Pinacle v. State, 625 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993), the Third District, citing to Perryman v. State, 608 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 621 So.2d 432 (Fla.1993), held that a contemporaneous objection was necessary to preserve a Karchesky sentencing error. 1995In Pinacle v. State, 625 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District, citing to Perryman , determined that the Karchesky issue had not been preserved for appellate review because of the absence of an appropriate objection to the addition of victim injury points to the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Karchesky v. State
red
2 sentences1995Both parties agree that pursuant to Karchesky , "penetration, which does not cause ascertainable physical injury, does not result in victim injury as contemplated by the rule for which victim-injury points may be assessed." [1] 591 So.2d at 932 . 1992However, the supreme court held that "penetration which does not cause ascertainable physical injury ... does not result in victim injury as contemplated by the rule." 591 So.2d at 932 . | 2 | 1992–1995 |
Sanchez v. State
neutral
2 sentences1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, 1993Cf. Sanchez v. State, 600 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (trial court may impose departure sentence after correction of Karchesky error, if supported by written findings). | 2 | 1993–1994 |
Payne v. State
neutral
1 sentence2011Matthews v. State, 6 So.3d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Routenberg v. State
green
1 sentence2001Routenberg v. State, 677 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Routenberg v. State, 721 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). [2] Resolution of the Karchesky issue allows a very narrow exception to the general rule that evidentiary hearings are not permitted in addressing motions filed pursuant to rule 3.800. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Routenberg v. State
green
1 sentence2001Routenberg v. State, 677 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Routenberg v. State, 721 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). [2] Resolution of the Karchesky issue allows a very narrow exception to the general rule that evidentiary hearings are not permitted in addressing motions filed pursuant to rule 3.800. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Singleton v. State
green
2 sentences1996Instead, he announced to the trial court that he assumed the scoresheet had been calculated correctly. [3] On appeal, the Second District, relying on Singleton v. State, 620 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), found that Montague's failure to raise a contemporaneous objection did not preclude the court's independent review of the alleged Karchesky error. 1996Instead, he announced to the trial court that he assumed the scoresheet had been calculated correctly. [3] On appeal, the Second District, relying on Singleton v. State, 620 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), found that Montague's failure to raise a contemporaneous objection did not preclude the court's independent review of the alleged Karchesky error. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Yates v. State
green
1 sentence1995See Jones v. State, 615 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); McGowan v. State, 586 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Yates v. State, 556 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McGowan v. State
green
1 sentence1995See Jones v. State, 615 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); McGowan v. State, 586 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Yates v. State, 556 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Carr v. Carr
green
1 sentence1995Thus, because district courts must follow their own decisions until overruled by the supreme court, see Carr v. Carr, 569 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we continue to adhere to the principle of Linkous that a contemporaneous objection is not necessary to preserve a Karchesky issue for appellate review. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Boland v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Morales v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Goodwin v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Beasley v. State
neutral
1 sentence1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Morrison v. State neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Jory v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Baker v. State neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fowler v. State
neutral
1 sentence1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wallen v. State
neutral
1 sentence1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Stone neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Lane v. State neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Campbell v. Campbell
green
1 sentence1994See also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversing summary denial of 3.800(a) motion relying on Karchesky ), review denied, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that Karchesky error is readily ascertainable from the face of the record and correctable under 3.800(a)). [2] Accord Kleshinski v. State, *105 620 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Roux v. State, 615 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Harrelson v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Cannon v. State neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Karchesky v. State green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 1992–1992 |