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 1965–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodrick D. Williams v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2026State v. Manago, 375 So. 3d 190 , 199 (Fla. 2023) (quoting Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280, 290 (Fla. 2018) (setting forth the harmless error test for Alleyne violations)). 2025See State v. Manago, 375 So. 3d 190 , 199 (Fla. 2023) (quoting Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280, 290 (Fla. 2018) (setting forth the harmless error test for Alleyne violations)). | 2 | 2 |
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Woodgreen2 sentences2018Co. v. Wood, 535 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (noting that new trial rulings “will not be disturbed unless it appears clear and patent on the record that prejudicial error occurred”). 2016Co. v. Wood, 535 So. 2d 699, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (stating that the trial court “has a superior vantage point to determine the effect” of any error on the jury and its ruling as to a new trial will not be disturbed “unless it appears clear and patent on the record that prejudicial error occurred”). | 2 | 2 |
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.green2 sentences2008See Amendments I, 696 So.2d at 1105 . 2000The question before the Court is whether the first sentence of section 924.051(3) operates as a jurisdictional bar to review "unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error." In Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 696 So.2d 1103, 1104-06, 1138 (Fla.1996), we adopted amendments to several procedural rules in order to "harmonize" our rules with the Act, specifically with sections 924.051(3) and (4). | 2 | 2 |
Hopkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2021After it was determined that the Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, he was permitted to represent himself.” - 26 - We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for self- representation for abuse of discretion, Knight v. State, 211 So. 3d 1, 15 (Fla. 2016), and where, as here, the errors alleged on appeal were not preserved, reversal is warranted only if the defendant establishes fundamental error, see Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1994); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2020) (“A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appe | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See Collins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1009 , 1110 n.3 (Fla. 2000) (declining to address other issues that were not the basis for exercising express and direct conflict jurisdiction). -6- determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. 3 Section 924.051(2) states that “[t]he right to direct appeal . . . may only be implemented in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this section,” and section 924.051(8) provides that | 1 | 1 |
& SC14-567 Ronald Knight v. State of Florida & Ronald Knight v. Julie L. Jones, etc.green1 sentence2021After it was determined that the Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, he was permitted to represent himself.” - 26 - We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for self- representation for abuse of discretion, Knight v. State, 211 So. 3d 1, 15 (Fla. 2016), and where, as here, the errors alleged on appeal were not preserved, reversal is warranted only if the defendant establishes fundamental error, see Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1994); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2020) (“A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jeffersongreen1 sentence2020The supreme court later acknowledged that “it is clear from the language of section 924.051(3) that the Legislature intended to condition reversal of a conviction on the existence of either an error that was preserved and prejudicial or an unpreserved error that constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Jefferson, 758 So. 2d 661, 664 (Fla. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. Hopkinsgreen1 sentence2018See also Ward v. Hopkins, 81 So. 2d 493, 494 (Fla. 1955) (“It is well settled that the granting or denying of a motion for a new trial rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial Judge and that his order is entitled to a presumption of correctness.”). | 1 | 1 |
Goodwin v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See also Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 545 (Fla.1999) (stating that an appellate court must conduct a harmless error analysis "even when the State has not argued that the complained of error was harmless" and citing Heuss v. State, 687 So.2d 823 (Fla.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Heuss v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See also Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 545 (Fla.1999) (stating that an appellate court must conduct a harmless error analysis "even when the State has not argued that the complained of error was harmless" and citing Heuss v. State, 687 So.2d 823 (Fla.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Overfeltgreen1 sentence1999Assuming, but without deciding, that a sentence that is enhanced without a proper factual foundation is fundamental error, we turn to whether the enhancement was proper in this case. ' In State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385, 1387 (Fla.1984), the court held that “before a trial court may enhance a defendant’s sentence or apply the mandatory minimum sentence for use of a firearm, the jury must make a finding that the defendant committed the crime while using a firearm either by finding him guilty of a crime which involves a firearm or by answering a specific question” on a special verdict form. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2022But see Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing section 924.051 in support of the conclusion that because the appellant "failed to seek correction of the scrivener's error in the trial court and because the error is not 12 fundamental, he is precluded from raising this issue on appeal" even though a preserved error was also alleged). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heggs v. State
green
1 sentence2003The motion may be filed by appellate counsel and must be served before the party's first brief is served." [4] Maddox, 760 So.2d at 94 . [5] Now designated rule 3.800(b)(1). [6] Now designated rule 9.140(e). [7] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). [8] Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2003The motion may be filed by appellate counsel and must be served before the party's first brief is served." [4] Maddox, 760 So.2d at 94 . [5] Now designated rule 3.800(b)(1). [6] Now designated rule 9.140(e). [7] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). [8] Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). 2003The motion may be filed by appellate counsel and must be served before the party's first brief is served." [4] Maddox, 760 So.2d at 94 . [5] Now designated rule 3.800(b)(1). [6] Now designated rule 9.140(e). [7] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). [8] Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Weiss v. State
green
1 sentence2002Section 924.051(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes, states that "`prejudicial error' means an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence." The Third District Court of Appeal in Weiss v. State, 720 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), aff'd, 761 So.2d 318 (Fla.2000), has explained the effect of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act on cases like the instant case. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Weiss v. State
green
1 sentence2002Section 924.051(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes, states that "`prejudicial error' means an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence." The Third District Court of Appeal in Weiss v. State, 720 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), aff'd, 761 So.2d 318 (Fla.2000), has explained the effect of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act on cases like the instant case. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Robinson v. State
green
1 sentence2000Such a defendant shall obtain review by means of collateral attack." 373 So.2d at 901 (quoting section 924.06(3), Florida Statutes (1977)). [7] Apparently, this Court in Robinson used the term "illegality of the sentence" in a broad sense to cover various types of errors in the sentence imposed. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.
green
1 sentence1998A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. (4) If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, or if a defendant pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, the defendant may not appeal the judgment or sentence. § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). [4] See su | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Johnny Roberts, Inc. v. Owens
green
1 sentence1988Johnny Roberts, Inc. v. Owens, 168 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1964). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
James v. Campbell
green
1 sentence1965In Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 512, 513 , the court stated: ****** “We have repeatedly held in numerous decisions that when an appeal is taken from a decision, order, judgment or decree entered by the trial court, the burden rests squarely upon appellant to clearly demonstrate by the record that prejudicial error was committed. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.