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.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
SLK v. Stategreen2 sentences2002The State has conceded error on KGM's second point, and therefore, we reverse on that issue for further proceedings in accordance with SLK v. State, 776 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding in part that any departure from sentencing recommendations submitted by DJJ must be supported by specific findings of fact supported by substantial competent evidence in the record). 2002The State has conceded error on KGM’s second point, and therefore, we reverse on that issue for further proceedings in accordance with SLK v. State, 776 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding in part that any departure from sentencing recommendations submitted by DJJ must be supported by specific findings of fact supported by substantial competent evidence in the record). | 2 | 2 |
Leonard v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000). [11] In this regard, we note that the defendant in Rider v. State, 724 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), review granted, 735 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 1999) (Case No. 95,060), claims that a statutory condition of probation is unconstitutionally vague. 2000See Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000). . | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Johnson v. State, 978 So.2d 872, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Roberts v. State, 64 So.3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Doctor v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Johnson v. State, 978 So.2d 872, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Roberts v. State, 64 So.3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Johnson v. State, 978 So.2d 872, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Roberts v. State, 64 So.3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Luger v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The state has conceded error in this case based on Luger v. State, 983 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and Schriber v. *640 State, 959 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Cunningham v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Cunningham v. State, 818 So.2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Bryant v. State, 626 So.2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Rider v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000). [11] In this regard, we note that the defendant in Rider v. State, 724 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), review granted, 735 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 1999) (Case No. 95,060), claims that a statutory condition of probation is unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graygreen1 sentence2000The information in this case failed to allege element (3), and the state has conceded error because of language contained in State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla.1983): [A] conviction on a charge not made by the indictment or information is a denial of due process of law. | 1 | 1 |
Yost v. Stategreen1 sentence1973See, Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 469 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schriber v. State
green
1 sentence2008The state has conceded error in this case based on Luger v. State, 983 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and Schriber v. *640 State, 959 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Bexley v. State
green
1 sentence2005Because the oral pronouncement controls, see Bexley v. State, 490 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and the State has conceded error, we remand for correction of the written order to conform with the oral pronouncement. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
De Jonge v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2000Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937). 2000Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Thornhill v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2000Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937). 2000Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1989Actually, the second issue is moot because of our reversal on the first issue. [3] In Blockburger , the now familiar rule was stated as follows: The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. at 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 . [4] The Blockburger rule has been codified by the Legislature in Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1985): (4) Whoever, 1989Actually, the second issue is moot because of our reversal on the first issue. [3] In Blockburger , the now familiar rule was stated as follows: The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. at 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 . [4] The Blockburger rule has been codified by the Legislature in Section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1985): (4) Whoever, | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gordon v. State
green
1 sentence1989Gordon v. State, 528 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence1986(Wright v. State, 478 So.2d 524 (Fla.2d DCA 1985).) We agree and reverse and remand for resentencing. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.