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 1998–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Petit-Homme v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing a summary denial of a newly discovered plea offer claim and remanding for further proceedings to address whether the defendant could have learned of the offer within the two-year time limit of rule 3.850). 4 REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions. 2018See Petit-Homme v. State , 205 So.3d 848 , 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing a summary denial of a newly discovered plea offer claim and remanding for further proceedings to address whether the defendant could have learned of the offer within the two-year time limit of rule 3.850 ). | 2 | 2 |
Mullins v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Mullins v. State, 974 So. 2d 1135 , 1137–38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Cardali v. State, 794 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Cardali v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Mullins v. State, 974 So. 2d 1135 , 1137–38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Cardali v. State, 794 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Lanier v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Lanier v. State, 826 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“A trial court may properly deny an amended rule 3.850 motion as untimely when it raises new claims and is filed outside of the two-year time period. | 1 | 1 |
WOMBAUGH v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Wombaugh, 25 So.3d at 709 ; Garnett, 957 So.2d at 33 n. 1. | 1 | 1 |
Spera v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Instead of setting a reasonable time limit of no more than thirty days for amending the facially insufficient claims as required by Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007), the postconviction court permitted amendment at any time within the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b), which in Mr. Herron’s case does not expire until approximately March 9, 2011. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2005See Anderson, 905 So.2d at 118 . | 1 | 1 |
Clugston v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Clugston v. State, 765 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(stating that newly discovered evidence is excepted from the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b)); Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991) (holding that in order to provide relief [pursuant to rule 3.850(b)(1)], the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Clugston v. State, 765 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(stating that newly discovered evidence is excepted from the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b)); Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991) (holding that in order to provide relief [pursuant to rule 3.850(b)(1)], the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. State
green
1 sentence2014See Wombaugh, 25 So.3d at 709 ; Garnett, 957 So.2d at 33 n. 1. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wood v. State
green
1 sentence2002In Wood , the supreme court determined that the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b) should apply to petitions for writ of error coram nobis, but provided that such decision would apply to all defendants adjudicated guilty after the date of Wood (May 27, 1999). 750 So.2d at 594-95 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Weir v. State
green
1 sentence1999Vonia distinguished two prior cases, Dequesada v. State, 444 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Weir v. State, 319 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), as having been decided before the two-year time limit on rule 3.850 motions was imposed. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Dequesada v. State
green
1 sentence1999Vonia distinguished two prior cases, Dequesada v. State, 444 So.2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Weir v. State, 319 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), as having been decided before the two-year time limit on rule 3.850 motions was imposed. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Steele v. Kehoe
green
1 sentence1999The court also certified a question similar to the one certified by the Fifth District in Steele v. Kehoe, 724 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Shipman v. State
neutral
1 sentence1999The petition was denied without prejudice and acknowledged that Medrano was entitled "to file in the circuit court a rule 3.850 motion, raising such claims as are not time-barred, since there is a possibility that petitioner may raise one or more grounds which fall within one of the exceptions to the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b)." Medrano, 719 So.2d at 16 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Patterson v. State
green
1 sentence1998Yet, as highlighted by the Fifth District’s comprehensive discussion of the issue in Steele v. Kehoe, 23 Fla. L. | 1 | 1998–1998 |