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.
12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hitchcock v. Duggergreen2 sentences1988Hitchcock v. Dugger, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1821 , 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), does not affect our holding that a Lockett claim is procedurally barred. 1988Hitchcock v. Dugger, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1821 , 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), does not affect our holding that a Lockett claim is procedurally barred. | 1 | 4 |
Doorbal v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Doorbal v. State, 837 So.2d 940, 959-60 (Fla.2003) (applying harmless error analysis to alleged Lockett error). | 1 | 1 |
Ronald K. Spivey v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Centergreen2 sentences1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour 1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour 1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Arizonagreen2 sentences1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour 1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour | 1 | 1 |
Songer v. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour 1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour | 1 | 1 |
Eddings v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour 1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour | 1 | 1 |
Lockett v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour 1986See, Jacobs v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) (facts from Marshal, J., dissenting), denying certiorari in Florida death case where trial court rejected nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and counsel failed to preserve issue on appeal. [14] Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), held an Ohio statute unconstitutional because it limited the mitigating circumstances which may be considered by the sentencer. [15] Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), a 5-4 decision, held trial cour | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2013In doing so, the court noted the State’s argument that this Lockett claim was procedurally barred — an argument, in essence, that Foster could not seek retroactive application of Lockett . 8 The court rejected this argument: “This Court has settled that question adversely to the state in Riley v. Wainwright, 517 So.2d 656 (Fla.1987).” Id. at 902 n. 3. 2013In doing so, the court noted the State’s argument that this Lockett claim was procedurally barred — an argument, in essence, that Foster could not seek retroactive application of Lockett . 8 The court rejected this argument: “This Court has settled that question adversely to the state in Riley v. Wainwright, 517 So.2d 656 (Fla.1987).” Id. at 902 n. 3. | 2 | 1987–2013 |
King v. State
green
2 sentences1990King, 514 So.2d at 358 . [2] See also Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 , 108 S.Ct. 2320 , 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (no constitutional right to have lingering doubts as to a defendant's guilt considered as a mitigating factor). [3] This issue presents no valid ground for postconviction relief. 1990King, 514 So.2d at 358 . 2 See also Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 , 108 S.Ct. 2320 , 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (no constitutional right to have lingering doubts as to a defendant’s guilt considered as a mitigating factor). 3 This issue presents no valid ground for postconviction relief. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Franklin v. Lynaugh
green
2 sentences1990King, 514 So.2d at 358 . 2 See also Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 , 108 S.Ct. 2320 , 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (no constitutional right to have lingering doubts as to a defendant’s guilt considered as a mitigating factor). 3 This issue presents no valid ground for postconviction relief. 1990King, 514 So.2d at 358 . 2 See also Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 , 108 S.Ct. 2320 , 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (no constitutional right to have lingering doubts as to a defendant’s guilt considered as a mitigating factor). 3 This issue presents no valid ground for postconviction relief. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Cooper v. State
green
1 sentence1988In Cooper II, we rejected petitioner's Lockett claim as procedurally barred. 437 So.2d at 1072 . [3] The trial judge did permit the defense to present evidence on Cooper's general reputation in the community for being a peaceful law-abiding citizen. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Downs v. Dugger
green
1 sentence1987Downs v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 1987); Thompson v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1987). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Thompson v. Dugger
green
1 sentence1987Downs v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 1987); Thompson v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1987). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Songer v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Et Al.
green
2 sentences1986In a previous petition in Songer, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari and, based on facts as stated in the dissenting opinion of Brennan, J., was directly presented with a Lockett claim, which the majority rejected. ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 817 , 819-22, 83 L.Ed.2d 809 , 812-14 (1985) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). 1986In a previous petition in Songer, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari and, based on facts as stated in the dissenting opinion of Brennan, J., was directly presented with a Lockett claim, which the majority rejected. ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 817 , 819-22, 83 L.Ed.2d 809 , 812-14 (1985) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Straight v. Wainwright
green
1 sentence1983Instructing on all of the statutory aggravating circumstances has been upheld previously in Straight v. Wainwright, 422 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1982). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Witt v. State
green
1 sentence1983Hitchcock's attempt to distinguish Armstrong is unavailing because the instant claim boils down to merely another Lockett challenge. [3] The claim that the current standard jury instructions (which require instructing only on those lesser degrees of homicide supported by the evidence and which is similar to the instruction upheld in Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982)) makes the former jury instruction arbitrary because of unchannelled jury discretion does not meet the test set out in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067 , 101 S.Ct | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hopper v. Evans
green
2 sentences1983Hitchcock's attempt to distinguish Armstrong is unavailing because the instant claim boils down to merely another Lockett challenge. [3] The claim that the current standard jury instructions (which require instructing only on those lesser degrees of homicide supported by the evidence and which is similar to the instruction upheld in Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982)) makes the former jury instruction arbitrary because of unchannelled jury discretion does not meet the test set out in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067 , 101 S.Ct 1983Hitchcock's attempt to distinguish Armstrong is unavailing because the instant claim boils down to merely another Lockett challenge. [3] The claim that the current standard jury instructions (which require instructing only on those lesser degrees of homicide supported by the evidence and which is similar to the instruction upheld in Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982)) makes the former jury instruction arbitrary because of unchannelled jury discretion does not meet the test set out in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067 , 101 S.Ct | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.