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.
16 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steve Lawrence Griffin v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2018See Griffin v. State, 160 So. 3d 63, 70 (Fla. 2015) (holding that the jury instruction for manslaughter by act constituted -4- fundamental error because Mr. Griffin was convicted of second-degree murder and did not concede the element of intent, so "proof of that issue remained on the State, and remained in dispute notwithstanding Griffin's defense of misidentification"). 2017Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 3 |
Grosvenor v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Grosvenor, 874 So.2d at 1182 . | 1 | 1 |
Gafford v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Citing the district court decision in Gafford v. State, 783 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), the trial court explained that the thirty-day limit is jurisdictional and thus the court did not have the authority to consider Griffin’s rule 3.170G) motion. 2013Citing the district court decision in Gafford v. State, 783 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), the trial court explained that the thirty-day limit is jurisdictional and thus the court did not have the authority to consider Griffin’s rule 3.170G) motion. | 1 | 1 |
Forget v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The proper vehicle to address Griffin's claim was either during his direct appeal, see Forget v. State, 782 So.2d 410, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the error is apparent on the face of the record), or in a timely filed rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lerouxgreen1 sentence2004See *774 State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996); Lewis v. State, 795 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Baxter v. Palmigianogreen2 sentences1993Id. at 318-19, 96 S.Ct. at 1558 (emphasis in original). 1993Id. at 318-19, 96 S.Ct. at 1558 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
LaSalle Bank, N. A. as Trustee for WAMU Mortgage etc. v. David L. Griffin Terrell K. Johnson and Linda Johnson
green
1 sentence2020David Griffin seeks review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Griffin, 248 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), regarding whether the circuit court presiding over the foreclosure action has continuing jurisdiction to consider a third-party purchaser’s motion to recover the value of repairs and improvements made to the property he purchased at a foreclosure sale that was later vacated. 1 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the circuit court had continuing jurisdiction to consider Griffin’s motion for damages. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Griffin'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
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Griffin'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 Griffin'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. Griffin'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. Griffin'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
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Griffin'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. Griffin'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
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Griffin'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 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2013Brady Violation Griffin also asserts that the State committed a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 873 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), based on an alleged immunity deal given to the drug dealer Kocolis for statements he made to the police. 2013Brady Violation Griffin also asserts that the State committed a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 873 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), based on an alleged immunity deal given to the drug dealer Kocolis for statements he made to the police. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence2009We also agree with the court in Griffin that rule 3.800(b) was not intended to circumvent rules requiring contemporaneous objections or to substitute for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. ' Jackson, 983 So.2d at 573 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Nixon v. State
neutral
1 sentence2008A petition for habeas corpus cannot substitute for a rule 3.850 motion, see Nixon v. State, 691 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), nor may it be used to circumvent a rule 3.850 motion barred by the two-year limitations period or the proscription against successive motions. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Williams v. State
neutral
1 sentence2007P. 3.850 motion; Williams v. State, 654 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (petition for habeas denied); Williams v. State, 675 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming denial of 3.800 relief); Williams v. State, 731 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (affirming denial of 3.800 relief); Williams v. State, 744 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (affirming denial of 3.800 relief); April 10, 2000, the trial court denied Griffin's motion for post conviction relief; May 25, 2000, the trial court denied Griffin's motion for post conviction relief as insufficient; Williams v. State, 806 So.2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Funding for Criminal Justice
green
1 sentence2004Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d at 972 n. 4. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lewis v. State
green
1 sentence2004See *774 State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996); Lewis v. State, 795 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Braxton v. State
green
1 sentence1995NOTES [1] Because this condition is specifically enumerated in the statute, we would not consider the absence of such a condition from the defendant's probation order significant with respect to our Griffin analysis. [2] We distinguish Braxton v. State, 524 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1983Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 (1967). 1983Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 (1967). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles
green
2 sentences1974The Eskridge decision reaffirmed the Griffin principle that a destitute defendant must be afforded as adequate an appellate review as defendants who have money enough to buy transcripts. "[A] State denies a constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment if it allows all convicted defendants to have appellate review except those who cannot afford to pay for the records of their trials." Eskridge, 357 U.S. at 216 , 78 S.Ct. at 1062 . 1974The Eskridge decision reaffirmed the Griffin principle that a destitute defendant must be afforded as adequate an appellate review as defendants who have money enough to buy transcripts. "[A] State denies a constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment if it allows all convicted defendants to have appellate review except those who cannot afford to pay for the records of their trials." Eskridge, 357 U.S. at 216 , 78 S.Ct. at 1062 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Gilbert v. California
green
2 sentences1968After full consideration of all the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires retrospective application." After observing that for "more than half a century, beginning in 1908, the Court adhered to the position that the Federal Constitution does not require the States to accord the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , were three 1968After full consideration of all the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires retrospective application." After observing that for "more than half a century, beginning in 1908, the Court adhered to the position that the Federal Constitution does not require the States to accord the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , were three | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences1968After full consideration of all the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires retrospective application." After observing that for "more than half a century, beginning in 1908, the Court adhered to the position that the Federal Constitution does not require the States to accord the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , were three 1968After full consideration of all the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires retrospective application." After observing that for "more than half a century, beginning in 1908, the Court adhered to the position that the Federal Constitution does not require the States to accord the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , were three | 1 | 1968–1968 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1968After full consideration of all the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires retrospective application." After observing that for "more than half a century, beginning in 1908, the Court adhered to the position that the Federal Constitution does not require the States to accord the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , were three 1968After full consideration of all the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires retrospective application." After observing that for "more than half a century, beginning in 1908, the Court adhered to the position that the Federal Constitution does not require the States to accord the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , were three | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.