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.
14 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scott Michael Sheheane v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2019If the trial court finds that Mr. Sutton "was competent at the time of the plea hearing, it must enter a nunc pro tunc order, and the judgment and sentence need not change." See id. (quoting Sheheane v. State, 228 So. 3d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)). 2018If the trial court finds Mr. Carrion “was competent at the time of the plea hearing, it must enter a nunc pro tunc order, and the judgment and sentence need not change.” See id. | 2 | 5 |
Rivera v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Rivera v. State, 746 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). 2004See also Rivera v. State, 746 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). | 2 | 2 |
Ronald Pak Zern v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2018Sheheane, 228 So. 3d at 1181 (citing Zern, 191 So. 3d at 965 ). 2018Sheheane , 228 So.3d at 1181 (citing Zern , 191 So.3d at 965 ). | 1 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1979It is not a matter of weighing the evidence but only to fulfill the purpose of the rule which is to make certain that a defendant does not plead guilty to an offense of which he could not possibly be guilty. . .See, Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267, 271 (Fla.1975), under an earlier version of the rule holding: “The sole purpose of the provision [factual basis of plea] is to determine the accuracy of the plea, thereby avoiding a mistake.” 1975Williams v. State, supra; See also, Church v. State, 299 So.2d 649 (4th DCA Fla. 1974). | 1 | 2 |
SIMINSKI v. Stategreen1 sentence2025And unless otherwise agreed, “[r]estitution cannot be ordered for a [crime] not encompassed within the charge contained in the information.” Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (citing Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)); see also Siminski v. State, 1 So. 3d 1161 , 1162–63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding restitution order where several items not listed in information or discussed as plea’s factual basis were claimed at restitution hearing but record on appeal was unclear as to “whether the discovery materials available to the defense at the ti | 1 | 1 |
Noland v. Stategreen1 sentence2025And unless otherwise agreed, “[r]estitution cannot be ordered for a [crime] not encompassed within the charge contained in the information.” Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (citing Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)); see also Siminski v. State, 1 So. 3d 1161 , 1162–63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding restitution order where several items not listed in information or discussed as plea’s factual basis were claimed at restitution hearing but record on appeal was unclear as to “whether the discovery materials available to the defense at the ti | 1 | 1 |
MATTHEW v. HAWKS v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen1 sentence2018The failure to apply Rules 3.210-215 and take appropriate measures once the trial court "makes an initial determination that it has reasonable grounds to question the competency of a defendant," Hawks , 226 So.3d at 894, notwithstanding the absence of a prior adjudication of incompetence, constitutes fundamental error that can be raised on direct appeal from a judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a plea. 5 On remand, if the trial court finds Appellant was competent at the time of the plea hearing, it must enter a nunc pro tunc order, and the judgment and sentence need not change. | 1 | 1 |
Lilley v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See also Lilley v. State, 667 So.2d 887, 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing for evidentiary hearing when the attachments to the record did not refute the defendant's allegations that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the court of the defendant's mental illness, alcoholism, and medication at the time of the plea hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Church v. Stategreen1 sentence1975Williams v. State, supra; See also, Church v. State, 299 So.2d 649 (4th DCA Fla. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Medlin v. State
green
2 sentences2017This Court reversed, holding that “the trial court’s restitution order should not have included more items than those the State anticipated as being com-pensable as restitution at the time of the plea hearing.” Id. 2017This Court reversed, holding that “the trial court’s restitution order should not have included more items than those the State anticipated as being compensable as restitution at the time of the plea hearing.” Id. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
D.J.M. v. State
neutral
2 sentences2017Likewise, in D.J.M., the defendant was charged with burglary of a conveyance and grand theft, and he pleaded guilty to the grand theft charge. 198 So.3d at 956 . 2017Likewise, in D.J.M., the defendant was charged with burglary of a conveyance and grand theft, and he pleaded guilty to the grand theft charge. 198 So. 3d at 956 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Stewart v. State
green
1 sentence2025And unless otherwise agreed, “[r]estitution cannot be ordered for a [crime] not encompassed within the charge contained in the information.” Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (citing Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)); see also Siminski v. State, 1 So. 3d 1161 , 1162–63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding restitution order where several items not listed in information or discussed as plea’s factual basis were claimed at restitution hearing but record on appeal was unclear as to “whether the discovery materials available to the defense at the ti | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Carrion v. State
green
1 sentence2019If the trial court finds that Mr. Sutton "was competent at the time of the plea hearing, it must enter a nunc pro tunc order, and the judgment and sentence need not change." See id. (quoting Sheheane v. State, 228 So. 3d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Golloman v. State
green
2 sentences2018But if the trial court cannot make a retroactive determination or if it finds Mr. Carrion was incompetent at the time of the plea hearing, the trial court must allow Mr. Carrion to withdraw his guilty plea, so long as Mr. Carrion is presently competent, See Golloman, 226 So.3d at 335 . 2018But if the trial court cannot make a retroactive determination or if it finds Mr. Carrion was incompetent at the time of the plea hearing, the trial court must allow Mr. Carrion to withdraw his guilty plea, so long as Mr. Carrion is presently competent, See Golloman, 226 So.3d at 335 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Randall v. State
green
1 sentence2007In the substantially similar case of Randall v. State, 885 So.2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), we held that an evidentiary hearing was required because the defendant's mental status, at the time of the plea hearing, was not conclusively refuted by the record. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Doward v. State
green
1 sentence2004In Doward v. State, 802 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we held in somewhat similar circumstances that an evidentiary hearing was required because the defendant's mental status at the time of the plea hearing was not conclusively refuted by the record. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.