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.
15 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Couzo v. Stategreen2 sentences2003In Couzo v. State, 830 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), this Court held that whether fundamental error has occurred when the “remaining in” language has been included in a burglary instruction turns on the facts of each case. 2003Id. at 180 . | 2 | 3 |
Johnekins v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Johnekins v. State, 823 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So.2d 890 (Fla.2003); Couzo v. State, 830 So.2d 177, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Miller v. State, 828 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). 2002Johnekins v. State, 823 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also Couzo v. State, 830 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Occhicone v. Stategreen1 sentence2005The record reveals that Green failed to object to the burglary instruction. "[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court." Occhicone v. State, 570 So.2d 902, 906 (Fla.1990) (quoting Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Bertolotti v. Duggergreen1 sentence2005The record reveals that Green failed to object to the burglary instruction. "[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court." Occhicone v. State, 570 So.2d 902, 906 (Fla.1990) (quoting Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Delgado v. Statered1 sentence2003See Delgado v. State, 776 So.2d 233, 240 (Fla.2000); Braggs v. State, 815 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Johnekins v. State, 823 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So.2d 890 (Fla.2003); Couzo v. State, 830 So.2d 177, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Miller v. State, 828 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Braggs v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Delgado v. State, 776 So.2d 233, 240 (Fla.2000); Braggs v. State, 815 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re JB
green
2 sentences2011Id. 2011Id. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Tinker v. State
green
2 sentences2002Id. 2001Id. | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Floyd v. State
green
2 sentences2018This case is factually distinguishable from Floyd v. State, 850 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2002). 2018This case is factually distinguishable from Floyd v. State , 850 So.2d 383 (Fla. 2002). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bernhardt v. State
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Freeman v. State
green
2 sentences2007The Freeman court held that it did not because, although the trial court instructed the jury that "at the time of entering the structure Kenneth Freeman had a fully-formed, conscious intent to commit the offense of burglary in the structure," the trial court used the proper wording when it completed the burglary instruction to the effect that "[e]ven though an unlawful entering or remaining in the structure is proved, if the evidence does not establish that it was done with the intent to commit theft, the defendant *523 must be found not guilty." Id. at 153 . 2007The error was not fundamental because the latter portion of the burglary instruction "made it clear that the jury had to find an intent to commit theft along with an unlawful entry." Id. at 154 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lopez v. State
green
2 sentences2006In Lopez v. State, 805 So.2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), this court held that “the burglary instruction may not include the phrase ‘remaining in’ ” where the evidence establishes that “entry was without permission.” Id. at 43 . 2006In Lopez v. State, 805 So.2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), this court held that “the burglary instruction may not include the phrase ‘remaining in’ ” where the evidence establishes that “entry was without permission.” Id. at 43 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Valentine v. State
green
2 sentences2003Fundamental error is only mentioned in respect to that portion of the burglary instruction which stated that "Valentine had to enter the vehicle with the intent to commit a `burglary' rather than with intent to commit some distinct, underlying offense." Id. at 936 . 2003Fundamental error is only mentioned in respect to that portion of the burglary instruction which stated that "Valentine had to enter the vehicle with the intent to commit a `burglary' rather than with intent to commit some distinct, underlying offense." Id. at 936 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Francis v. State
green
1 sentence2003After Delgado became final, this Court affirmed a burglary conviction in Francis v. State, 808 So.2d 110 (Fla.2001), where the burglary instruction given was substantially similar to the one given in the present case. [1] This Court stated: In Delgado, we held that burglary is not intended to cover a situation where an invited guest turns criminal or violent once he peaceably gains entry. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Roberson v. State
green
1 sentence2003Roberson, 841 So.2d at 493 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Crum v. State
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 269 . 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.