17 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spencer v. Stategreen2 sentences1999NOTES [1] Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993). [2] We have often explicitly vacated the death sentence when we have remanded based on a Campbell error. 1999NOTES [1] Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993). [2] We have often explicitly vacated the death sentence when we have remanded based on a Campbell error. | 2 | 3 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Jackson v. State, 767 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Fla.2000) (citing Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688, 691 (Fla.1993)). 2015Jackson v. State, 767 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Fla.2000) (citing Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688, 691 (Fla.1993)). | 2 | 2 |
Harrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2013In denying Mr. Campbell’s claim, the postconviction court found that rule 3.172(g), allowing the withdrawal of pleas, applies “only before sentencing” citing to Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935, 939 (Fla.2005). 2011In denying Mr. Campbell’s claim, the postconviction court found that rule 3.172(g), allowing the withdrawal of pleas, applies “only before sentencing” citing to Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935, 939 (Fla.2005). | 2 | 2 |
Reese v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Furthermore, as this Court explained *179 in Reese v. State, 728 So.2d 727, 728 (Fla.1999), when a case is remanded for a new sentencing order based on Campbell error, "the court is to conduct a new hearing, giving both parties an opportunity to present argument and submit sentencing memoranda before determining an appropriate sentence." However, "[n]o new evidence shall be introduced at the hearing." Id. 2005Furthermore, as this Court explained *179 in Reese v. State, 728 So.2d 727, 728 (Fla.1999), when a case is remanded for a new sentencing order based on Campbell error, "the court is to conduct a new hearing, giving both parties an opportunity to present argument and submit sentencing memoranda before determining an appropriate sentence." However, "[n]o new evidence shall be introduced at the hearing." Id. | 2 | 2 |
Oyola v. Stategreen1 sentence2025As an initial matter, Allen misstates this Court’s precedents. - 31 - He asserts that the failure to expressly evaluate each proposed mitigator “constitutes fundamental error” that warrants “a new appeal, or . . . a new penalty phase.” But this Court has found that a significant enough Campbell error—where that error was raised on direct appeal—warranted a remand “for the limited purpose of . . . providing this Court with a revised sentencing order.” Oyola v. State, 99 So. 3d 431, 447 (Fla. 2012), receded from in part by Rogers v. State, 285 So. 3d 872 , 890 (Fla. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Malone v. State, 852 So.2d 412, 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding that trial court’s duty to perform Nelson inquiry was triggered by defendant’s request for substitute counsel based on counsel’s failure “to file certain requested motions”). | 1 | 1 |
Scull v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Nevertheless, the Florida Supreme Court held in Sweet that even when the defendant had unequivocally requested discharge of appointed counsel and the trial court failed to conduct a Nelson hearing following the request, “the failure was rendered moot by [defendant’s] subsequent acceptance of and satisfaction with new counsel.” 624 So.2d at 1141 (citing Scull v. State, 533 So.2d 1137, 1139-41 (Fla.1988) (failure to adequately inquire into request to discharge attorney rendered moot by defendant’s subsequent expressions of satisfaction with attorney’s performance)); accord Thompson v. State, 174 | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Nevertheless, the Florida Supreme Court held in Sweet that even when the defendant had unequivocally requested discharge of appointed counsel and the trial court failed to conduct a Nelson hearing following the request, “the failure was rendered moot by [defendant’s] subsequent acceptance of and satisfaction with new counsel.” 624 So.2d at 1141 (citing Scull v. State, 533 So.2d 1137, 1139-41 (Fla.1988) (failure to adequately inquire into request to discharge attorney rendered moot by defendant’s subsequent expressions of satisfaction with attorney’s performance)); accord Thompson v. State, 174 | 1 | 1 |
Peterka v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Peterka v. State, 640 So.2d 59, 70 (Fla.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999We have referred to it as a "bedrock requirement [that] cannot be met by treating mitigating evidence as an academic exercise." Hudson, 708 So.2d at 259 (quoting Walker, 707 So.2d at 319 ). 1999We have referred to it as a "bedrock requirement [that] cannot be met by treating mitigating evidence as an academic exercise." Hudson, 708 So.2d at 259 (quoting Walker, 707 So.2d at 319 ). | 1 | 1 |
Crump v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). 1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). 1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Statered2 sentences1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). 1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences1999We have referred to it as a "bedrock requirement [that] cannot be met by treating mitigating evidence as an academic exercise." Hudson, 708 So.2d at 259 (quoting Walker, 707 So.2d at 319 ). 1999We have referred to it as a "bedrock requirement [that] cannot be met by treating mitigating evidence as an academic exercise." Hudson, 708 So.2d at 259 (quoting Walker, 707 So.2d at 319 ). | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). 1999See, e.g., Hudson v. State, 708 So.2d 256, 263 (Fla. 1998); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 319 (Fla. 1997); Jackson v. State, 704 So.2d 500, 508 (Fla. 1997); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1995); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 973 (Fla. 1993); Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1995State v. Jones, id. at 438. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence1982See Davis v. State, 346 So.2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences2013The postconviction court ruled that the trial judge’s inadvertent failure to formally accept Mr. Campbell’s plea did not entitle Mr. Campbell to withdraw his plea nearly eleven years after the sentence had been imposed. [On appeal to the Second District], Mr. Campbell argue[d] that the trial court erred in failing to follow Cox v. State, 35 So.3d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), which he argue[d] [wa]s controlling. 2011Therefore, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of Mr. Campbell’s motion and certify conflict with the First District’s opinion in Cox, 35 So.3d 47 . | 2 | 2011–2013 |
Sweet v. State
green
2 sentences2016Sweet v. State, 624 So.2d 1138 (Fla.1993). 2016Sweet v. State, 624 So.2d 1138 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Trease v. State
green
2 sentences2001The Court recently in Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050 (Fla.2000), modified the Campbell standard in one respect: We hereby recede from our opinion in Campbell to the extent it disallows trial courts from according no weight to a mitigating factor and recognize that there are circumstances where a mitigating circumstance may be found to be supported by the record, but given no weight. 2001The Court recently in Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050 (Fla.2000), modified the Campbell standard in one respect: We hereby recede from our opinion in Campbell to the extent it disallows trial courts from according no weight to a mitigating factor and recognize that there are circumstances where a mitigating circumstance may be found to be supported by the record, but given no weight. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
TIG Ins. Co. v. Wagner
green
1 sentence1998In Gardner v. State, 707 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we held that a claim that a written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hartsfield v. State
green
1 sentence1996We quash the district court decision below and approve the decision in Hartsfield v. State, 629 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Campbell v. State
green
1 sentence1993In Campbell v. State, 616 So.2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we remanded for further consideration of one issue raised in Campbell’s motion: whether his trial attorney was ineffective for not investigating the possible existence of crucial “medical witnesses.” After remand the trial court again denied the motion, finding that Campbell had not told his attorney about the witnesses until the evening before trial. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Baker v. State
green
1 sentence1986Baker v. State, 427 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.