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 1990–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trapp v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924, 928 (Fla.2000) (window period began on October 1, 1995, and closed on May 24, 1997). 2001See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924, 928 (Fla.2000) (window period began on October 1, 1995, and closed on May 24,1997). | 3 | 4 |
Stuart v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Stuart v. State, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla.1978) (it is the State, and not the defendant, that has the obligation to see that the time periods within the rule are followed); Massey v. Graziano, 564 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Under the current speedy trial rule, the duty rests on the State to afford a defendant a hearing, and, if necessary, a trial within the window period provided by rule 3.191. | 1 | 1 |
Maddox v. Stategreen2 sentences2001In Thogode v. State, 763 So.2d 281 (Fla.2000), we held that the failure to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence can be raised on direct appeal during the window period because the error “affects the integrity of the sentencing process concerning the critical question of the length of the sentence.” Id. at 281 (quoting Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 107 (Fla.2000)). 2001In contrast, in Maddox, we held that the late filing of written reasons did not constitute fundamental error. 760 So.2d at 108 . | 1 | 1 |
Diaz v. Stategreen1 sentence2000The Florida Supreme Court has held that the “window period for challenging the sentencing guidelines provisions amended in chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, opened on October 1, 1995, when such amended guidelines provisions became effective, and closed on May 24, 1997, when chapter 97-97, Laws of Florida, reenacted the amendments contained in chapter 95-184 as part of the biennial adoption process.” Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000); See also Diaz v. State, 752 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(previously holding that the window period for challenging chapter 95-184 • closed on May 24,1997). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See 708 So.2d at 317 n. 1. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1998"Once reenacted as a portion of the Florida Statutes, a chapter law is no longer subject to challenge on the grounds that it violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution." State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2004Further, Eubanks was followed by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. State, 715 So.2d 241 (Fla.1998), in which the court held that the State had the right to move for an extension of the original 175-day speedy trial period “so long as the time period sought to be extended has not expired at the time the extension is requested.” Id. at 243 . 2004Further, Eubanks was followed by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. State, 715 So.2d 241 (Fla.1998), in which the court held that the State had the right to move for an extension of the original 175-day speedy trial period “so long as the time period sought to be extended has not expired at the time the extension is requested.” Id. at 243 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Massey v. Graziano
green
1 sentence2003See Stuart v. State, 360 So.2d 406 (Fla.1978) (it is the State, and not the defendant, that has the obligation to see that the time periods within the rule are followed); Massey v. Graziano, 564 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Under the current speedy trial rule, the duty rests on the State to afford a defendant a hearing, and, if necessary, a trial within the window period provided by rule 3.191. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Thogode v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Thogode v. State, 763 So.2d 281 (Fla.2000), we held that the failure to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence can be raised on direct appeal during the window period because the error “affects the integrity of the sentencing process concerning the critical question of the length of the sentence.” Id. at 281 (quoting Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 107 (Fla.2000)). 2001In Thogode v. State, 763 So.2d 281 (Fla.2000), we held that the failure to file statutorily required written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence can be raised on direct appeal during the window period because the error “affects the integrity of the sentencing process concerning the critical question of the length of the sentence.” Id. at 281 (quoting Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 107 (Fla.2000)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Heggs v. State
green
1 sentence2000Because the Second District has determined that the window period to challenge chapter 95-184 on single-subject grounds closes on May 24, 1997, see Heggs v. State, 718 So.2d 263 , 264 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), we certify conflict with the Second District on the issue of the applicable window period. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Heggs v. State
green
1 sentence2000As to the final point on appeal, the State concedes that the defendant falls within the window period to challenge his sentence under the 1995 guidelines, which were invalidated in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ariza v. Cycmanick
green
1 sentence1990Ariza v. Cycmanick, 548 So.2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Lenard v. Moxley, 497 So.2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lenard v. MOXLEY IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY
green
1 sentence1990Ariza v. Cycmanick, 548 So.2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Lenard v. Moxley, 497 So.2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |