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 1982–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Stategreen1 sentence2019E.g., Stewart . . . .” Delva, 575 So. 2d at 644-45 ; see also Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2002) (invoking Brown and Stewart test to find fundamental error involving an element of the offense of conviction). - 11 - Our decision in Stewart did not loosen or in any way expand the fundamental error test of Brown. | 1 | 1 |
Savage v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Jennings v. State, 123 So. 3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013) ("[T]he court must accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record."); Savage v. State, 832 So. 2d 807, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Jennings v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Jennings v. State, 123 So. 3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013) ("[T]he court must accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record."); Savage v. State, 832 So. 2d 807, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Because “a criminal defendant cannot, by virtue of a plea bargain, confer upon a court the authority to impose an illegal sentence,” Brown v. State, 609 So.2d 730, 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the trial court erred in denying Stewart’s motion raising the issue. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Second, because Stewart’s convictions were for two first-degree felonies and one third-degree felony, rather than for any life felony or capital felony, the court incorrectly concluded .that it had no discretion to impose a youthful offender sentence based on the nature of the charges in this case. * See § 958.04, Fla. Stat. (2014) (precluding youthful offender classification where a defendant has been found guilty of a capital or life felony); Williams v. State, 405 So.2d 436, 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (distinguishing between first-degree felonies punishable by “a term of years not exceeding li | 1 | 1 |
Savage v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Romine v. State, 151 So.3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Fla. R. | 1 | 1 |
Ventura v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Ventura v. State, 2 So.3d 194, 200 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2839 , 174 L.Ed.2d 562 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Way v. Stategreen1 sentence2001To be entitled to relief under Brady , a defendant must satisfy three elements: "[1] The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have ensued." Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000) (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Stewart, 588 So.2d at 974 . [3] In his motion, Stewart incorrectly numbered his claims as though he had raised twenty-six claims. | 1 | 1 |
Downs v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 509 (Fla.1999) (concluding that where allegations of individual error do not warrant relief, a cumulative error argument based thereon is without merit). [7] Stewart's claim of ineffectiveness for counsel's failure to request a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication is similarly without merit. | 1 | 1 |
City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc.green1 sentence2000But the judge of compensation claims found: [A]t all times pertinent hereto, [the hiring firm who represents the claimant] had established appropriate screening mechanisms to prevent [the paralegal] from [having] any involvement with representation of the Claimant in this case and from revealing any of the information which she might have obtained as an employee of [the former firm who represents Bee-Dee Neon]. [The JCC further found] that no ethical violation ha[d] occurred, and that [the hiring firm] "ha[d] taken those steps which a responsible firm should to ensure that there is no impropri | 1 | 1 |
Goutier v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Goutier v. State, 692 So.2d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Coleman v. State, 677 So.2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Delva
green
1 sentence2019E.g., Stewart . . . .” Delva, 575 So. 2d at 644-45 ; see also Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2002) (invoking Brown and Stewart test to find fundamental error involving an element of the offense of conviction). - 11 - Our decision in Stewart did not loosen or in any way expand the fundamental error test of Brown. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Steve Lawrence Griffin v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2019Our fundamental error analysis in Haygood and Griffin v. State, 160 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2015), which relied in part on the Stewart test, lends some support to Knight’s argument. 2019Our fundamental error analysis in Haygood and Griffin v. State, 160 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2015), which relied in part on the Stewart test, lends some support to Knight’s argument. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Stewart’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 Stewart’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 Stewart’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. Stewart’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. Stewart’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. Stewart’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. Stewart’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. Stewart’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 |
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence2013We have carefully considered whether the location of the bloody projectile might be evidence sufficient to make Mr. Stewart’s defense “extremely weak,” like the claim in Martinez. 981 So.2d at 456 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Baze v. Rees
green
2 sentences2010Stewart’s claim is also without merit because this Court has repeatedly held that Florida’s current lethal injection protocol is constitutional under Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 , 128 S.Ct. 1520 , 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008). 2010Stewart’s claim is also without merit because this Court has repeatedly held that Florida’s current lethal injection protocol is constitutional under Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 , 128 S.Ct. 1520 , 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2004I concur in the majority opinion except that, regarding Stewart's claim that Florida's capital sentencing scheme violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), I would simply hold, in accordance with my specially concurring opinion in Windom v. State, Nos. 2004I concur in the majority opinion except that, regarding Stewart's claim that Florida's capital sentencing scheme violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), I would simply hold, in accordance with my specially concurring opinion in Windom v. State, Nos. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Stewart v. State
green
2 sentences2004The facts and procedural history of this case are set out fully in Stewart v. State, 801 So.2d 59 (Fla.2001), where this Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Stewart's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule *531 of Criminal Procedure 3.850. 2004We affirmed this denial in Stewart v. State, 801 So.2d 59 (Fla.2001). [3] With respect to Stewart's claim that trial counsel failed to investigate evidence of Stewart's alleged childhood abuse as possible mitigation, this Court concluded that "the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence in this case was well within the realm of constitutionally adequate assistance of counsel." Stewart, 801 So.2d at 68 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Windom v. State
green
1 sentence2004SC01-2706 & SC02-2142, ___ So.2d ___, 2004 WL 1057640 (Fla. May 6, 2004), that under both federal and Florida law, Ring does not apply to convictions that had become final before that opinion was rendered. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Strickler v. Greene
green
2 sentences2001To be entitled to relief under Brady , a defendant must satisfy three elements: "[1] The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have ensued." Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000) (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)). 2001To be entitled to relief under Brady , a defendant must satisfy three elements: "[1] The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have ensued." Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000) (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2001Brady Violation Stewart next argues the trial court erred in denying Stewart's claim that the State failed to provide jail records to his attorney prior to trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2001Brady Violation Stewart next argues the trial court erred in denying Stewart's claim that the State failed to provide jail records to his attorney prior to trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Coleman v. State
green
1 sentence1999See Goutier v. State, 692 So.2d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Coleman v. State, 677 So.2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence1985Strickland states that the "court making the prejudice inquiry must ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors." 104 S.Ct. at 2069 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Bell v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.