82 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spencer v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). - 17 - However, Zieler testified again at the Spencer hearing and denied committing the murders. 2026Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). - 17 - However, Zieler testified again at the Spencer hearing and denied committing the murders. | 10 | 25 |
Perez v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347, 374 (Fla. 2005) (determining that the trial court was allowed to use in-court testimony and an expert’s report, which was admitted into evidence during the Spencer hearing, to conclude that the mitigator of inability to conform conduct to the requirements of the law was not established). - 46 - Middleton next claims that the trial court improperly rejected mitigating evidence of impaired capacity. 2017See Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347, 374 (Fla. 2005) (determining that the trial court was allowed to use in-court testimony and an expert’s report, which was admitted into evidence during the Spencer hearing, to conclude that the mitigator of inability to conform conduct to the requirements of the law was not established). - 46 - Middleton next claims that the trial court improperly rejected mitigating evidence of impaired capacity. | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Williams v. State, 987 So. 2d 1, 12-14 (Fla. 2008) (holding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of a mental health expert’s report where trial counsel testified that he deemed it unnecessary to present the report to the judge at a Spencer hearing because the jury recommended a life sentence, but the judge had a history of overriding jury recommendations). 2010We also noted that "it is apparent that defense counsel *680 simply had nothing to lose in presenting this evidence at the Spencer hearing, thereby ensuring that such evidence would be in the record on appellate review.” Id. at 13. | 2 | 3 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Jackson v. State, 767 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Fla.2000) (citing Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688, 691 (Fla.1993)). 2015Jackson v. State, 767 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Fla.2000) (citing Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688, 691 (Fla.1993)). | 2 | 2 |
Preston v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Second, reliance on evidence not presented during the 2005 proceeding is inconsistent with the premise that a resentencing proceeding is de novo and must begin with a "clean slate." Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517, 525 (Fla.2007) (citing Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla. 1992); Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 334 (Fla.2001)). 2008Second, reliance on evidence not presented during the 2005 proceeding is inconsistent with the premise that a resen-tencing proceeding is de novo and must begin with a “clean slate.” Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517, 525 (Fla.2007) (citing Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla.1992); Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 334 (Fla.2001)). | 2 | 2 |
Morton v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Second, reliance on evidence not presented during the 2005 proceeding is inconsistent with the premise that a resentencing proceeding is de novo and must begin with a "clean slate." Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517, 525 (Fla.2007) (citing Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla. 1992); Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 334 (Fla.2001)). 2008Second, reliance on evidence not presented during the 2005 proceeding is inconsistent with the premise that a resen-tencing proceeding is de novo and must begin with a “clean slate.” Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517, 525 (Fla.2007) (citing Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla.1992); Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 334 (Fla.2001)). | 2 | 2 |
Galindez v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Second, reliance on evidence not presented during the 2005 proceeding is inconsistent with the premise that a resentencing proceeding is de novo and must begin with a "clean slate." Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517, 525 (Fla.2007) (citing Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla. 1992); Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 334 (Fla.2001)). 2008Second, reliance on evidence not presented during the 2005 proceeding is inconsistent with the premise that a resen-tencing proceeding is de novo and must begin with a “clean slate.” Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517, 525 (Fla.2007) (citing Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla.1992); Morton v. State, 789 So.2d 324, 334 (Fla.2001)). | 2 | 2 |
Koon v. Duggergreen2 sentences2025Koon v. Dugger, 619 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1993). - 13 - The circuit court denied Damas’s amended motion on all claims after conducting an evidentiary hearing. 2007In accordance with the procedures in Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla.1993), defense counsel profferred additional mental health evidence, including the mental health reports from the appointed experts, depositions from codefendants, and letters to the court from family and friends. | 1 | 2 |
Darling v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Darling v. State, 966 So. 2d 366, 377 (Fla. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Henry Lee Jones v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2025See Jones v. State, 212 So. 3d 321, 342 (Fla. 2017) (plurality opinion) (rejecting claim that PSI failed to comport with Muhammad, - 19 - concluding that “[t]he procedures followed by the trial court”— including “appoint[ing] court counsel for the purpose of presenting mitigation at the Spencer hearing”—“were sufficient to ensure that mitigation was presented”). 6. 2025See Jones v. State, 212 So. 3d 321, 342 (Fla. 2017) (plurality opinion) (rejecting claim that PSI failed to comport with Muhammad, - 19 - concluding that “[t]he procedures followed by the trial court”— including “appoint[ing] court counsel for the purpose of presenting mitigation at the Spencer hearing”—“were sufficient to ensure that mitigation was presented”). 6. | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Id. at 39 (footnote omitted). - 47 - a reasonable doubt.” Allen v. State, 322 So. 3d 589 , 603 (Fla. 2021) (quoting Bradley v. State, 787 So. 2d 732, 738 (Fla. 2001)). 2024Id. at 39 (footnote omitted). - 47 - a reasonable doubt.” Allen v. State, 322 So. 3d 589 , 603 (Fla. 2021) (quoting Bradley v. State, 787 So. 2d 732, 738 (Fla. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
James Robertson v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2022See Robertson v. State, 187 So. 3d 1207, 1216-17 (Fla. 2016) (combining Spencer hearing and imposition of sentence in one proceeding did not violate due process where defendant presented evidence and addressed the court before imposition of sentence). | 1 | 1 |
Craig Alan Wall, Sr. v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2021See 238 So. 3d at 146 . | 1 | 1 |
Tillery v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justicegreen1 sentence2020Specifically, the judge who presided over Brown’s trial received an email from Jennifer Malone on the morning of the Spencer hearing that stated Brown “did A LOT for [Malone] when [she] had no one else” and that “the Tina [Malone] knew was a wonderful friend and person that would do anything to help anyone.” Although the circuit court ruled that Dr. Sultan’s testimony about her interview with Malone revealed “additional details regarding [Brown’s] influence in Ms. Malone’s life,” it found that the information “would not have changed [Brown’s] sentence.” Moreover, the circuit court ruled that B | 1 | 1 |
Delgado v. Hearngreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135 , 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 , 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying the Spencer standard to civil litigants). 2019See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135 , 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 , 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying the Spencer standard to civil litigants). | 1 | 1 |
Mattie Lomax v. Alan A. Taylorgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135 , 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 , 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying the Spencer standard to civil litigants). 2019See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135 , 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 , 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying the Spencer standard to civil litigants). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Gordon Reynolds v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2018And Spencer's claim that his death sentence violates Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), and the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by our recent decision in Reynolds v. State , 251 So.3d 811 , 825 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed , No. 18-5181 (U.S. July 3, 2018), in which we held that "a Caldwell claim based on the rights announced in Hurst and Hurst v. Florida cannot be used to retroactively invalidate the jury instructions that were proper at the time under Florida law" (citing Romano v. Oklahoma , 512 U.S. 1 , 9, 114 S.Ct. 2004 , 129 L.Ed.2d 1 2018And Spencer’s claim that -3- his death sentence violates Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), and the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by our recent decision in Reynolds v. State, 251 So. 3d 811, 825 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed, No. 18-5181 (U.S. July 3, 2018), in which we held that “a Caldwell claim based on the rights announced in Hurst and Hurst v. Florida cannot be used to retroactively invalidate the jury instructions that were proper at the time under Florida law” (citing Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 9 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Romano v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2018And Spencer's claim that his death sentence violates Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), and the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by our recent decision in Reynolds v. State , 251 So.3d 811 , 825 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed , No. 18-5181 (U.S. July 3, 2018), in which we held that "a Caldwell claim based on the rights announced in Hurst and Hurst v. Florida cannot be used to retroactively invalidate the jury instructions that were proper at the time under Florida law" (citing Romano v. Oklahoma , 512 U.S. 1 , 9, 114 S.Ct. 2004 , 129 L.Ed.2d 1 2018And Spencer's claim that his death sentence violates Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), and the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by our recent decision in Reynolds v. State , 251 So.3d 811 , 825 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed , No. 18-5181 (U.S. July 3, 2018), in which we held that "a Caldwell claim based on the rights announced in Hurst and Hurst v. Florida cannot be used to retroactively invalidate the jury instructions that were proper at the time under Florida law" (citing Romano v. Oklahoma , 512 U.S. 1 , 9, 114 S.Ct. 2004 , 129 L.Ed.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Wong v. Belmontesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Deparvine v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Penry v. Lynaughred | 1 | 1 |
| Spencer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McKenzie v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Deaton v. Duggergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blackwood v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Coneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rutherford v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cox v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rigterink v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gaskin v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Foster v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sochor v. Floridagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stewart v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Floyd v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morrison v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cole v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sireci v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the SE v. Owensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2017Direct Appeal Proceedings Hampton raised five issues on direct appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying Hampton’s requests for a juror interview or a new trial based on the assertion that one member of the jury was “under prosecution” while serving; (2) whether the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it could find Hampton committed first-degree felony murder based on the commission of the underlying felony of sexual battery; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of certain autopsy photographs; (4) whether Florida’s capital sentencing scheme v 2017Direct Appeal Proceedings Hampton raised five issues on direct appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying Hampton’s requests for a juror interview or a new trial based on the assertion that one member of the jury was “under prosecution” while serving; (2) whether the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it could find Hampton committed first-degree felony murder based on the commission of the underlying felony of sexual battery; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of certain autopsy photographs; (4) whether Florida’s capital sentencing scheme v | 3 | 2009–2017 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2024As to the BP motion, the trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on claim 7 (trial counsel failed to use available evidence to show flaws in the State’s hypothesis of prosecution), claim 15(a) (trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate Davis’s background and present complete social history mitigation), claim 16 (Davis was deprived of right to a reliable adversarial testing at the Spencer hearing given trial counsel’s failure to ensure the preparation of a comprehensive pre-sentencing investigation report and provide additional mitigation evidence; (17) Davis was deprived of a full adve 2024As to the BP motion, the trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on claim 7 (trial counsel failed to use available evidence to show flaws in the State’s hypothesis of prosecution), claim 15(a) (trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate Davis’s background and present complete social history mitigation), claim 16 (Davis was deprived of right to a reliable adversarial testing at the Spencer hearing given trial counsel’s failure to ensure the preparation of a comprehensive pre-sentencing investigation report and provide additional mitigation evidence; (17) Davis was deprived of a full adve | 2 | 2017–2024 |
Caldwell v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2021Specifically, Allen argues that (1) the trial court’s failure to renew the offer of counsel before commencing the penalty phase constitutes fundamental error; (2) a guilt-phase jury instruction and a penalty-phase argument by the prosecutor violate Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), and collectively amount to fundamental error; (3) fundamental error occurred because the State violated Allen’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination during the Spencer hearing; and (4) the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to instruct the penalty- phase jury that it must de 2021Specifically, Allen argues that (1) the trial court’s failure to renew the offer of counsel before commencing the penalty phase constitutes fundamental error; (2) a guilt-phase jury instruction and a penalty-phase argument by the prosecutor violate Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), and collectively amount to fundamental error; (3) fundamental error occurred because the State violated Allen’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination during the Spencer hearing; and (4) the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to instruct the penalty- phase jury that it must de | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Grim v. State
green
2 sentences2018Grim I , 841 So.2d at 460 . 2018Grim I , 841 So.2d at 460 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
green
2 sentences2016Indeed, the undiscovered “mitigating evidence, taken as a whole, ‘might well have influenced the jury’s appraisal’ of [Bright’s] moral culpability.” See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 538 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 ; see also Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (“[Evidence about the defendant’s background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background ... may be less culpable.”). 2016Indeed, the undiscovered “mitigating evidence, taken as a whole, ‘might well have influenced the jury’s appraisal’ of [Bright’s] moral culpability.” See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 538 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 ; see also Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (“[Evidence about the defendant’s background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background ... may be less culpable.”). | 2 | 2010–2016 |
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences2024As to the BP motion, the trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on claim 7 (trial counsel failed to use available evidence to show flaws in the State’s hypothesis of prosecution), claim 15(a) (trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate Davis’s background and present complete social history mitigation), claim 16 (Davis was deprived of right to a reliable adversarial testing at the Spencer hearing given trial counsel’s failure to ensure the preparation of a comprehensive pre-sentencing investigation report and provide additional mitigation evidence; (17) Davis was deprived of a full adve 2024As to the BP motion, the trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on claim 7 (trial counsel failed to use available evidence to show flaws in the State’s hypothesis of prosecution), claim 15(a) (trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate Davis’s background and present complete social history mitigation), claim 16 (Davis was deprived of right to a reliable adversarial testing at the Spencer hearing given trial counsel’s failure to ensure the preparation of a comprehensive pre-sentencing investigation report and provide additional mitigation evidence; (17) Davis was deprived of a full adve | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Giglio v. United States
green
2 sentences2024As to the BP motion, the trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on claim 7 (trial counsel failed to use available evidence to show flaws in the State’s hypothesis of prosecution), claim 15(a) (trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate Davis’s background and present complete social history mitigation), claim 16 (Davis was deprived of right to a reliable adversarial testing at the Spencer hearing given trial counsel’s failure to ensure the preparation of a comprehensive pre-sentencing investigation report and provide additional mitigation evidence; (17) Davis was deprived of a full adve 2024As to the BP motion, the trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on claim 7 (trial counsel failed to use available evidence to show flaws in the State’s hypothesis of prosecution), claim 15(a) (trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate Davis’s background and present complete social history mitigation), claim 16 (Davis was deprived of right to a reliable adversarial testing at the Spencer hearing given trial counsel’s failure to ensure the preparation of a comprehensive pre-sentencing investigation report and provide additional mitigation evidence; (17) Davis was deprived of a full adve | 1 | 2024–2024 |
John F. Mosley v. State of Florida & SC14-2108 John F. Mosley v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
green
2 sentences2022True, the determination we must make requires us to - 16 - “consider[] the entire scope of the defendant’s request, instead of focusing on one isolated statement,” Mosley, 209 So. 3d at 1272 , but Mosley’s request about the Spencer hearing came at a time that allowed ample consideration by the trial court. 2022True, the determination we must make requires us to - 16 - “consider[] the entire scope of the defendant’s request, instead of focusing on one isolated statement,” Mosley, 209 So. 3d at 1272 , but Mosley’s request about the Spencer hearing came at a time that allowed ample consideration by the trial court. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Riethmiller v. Riethmiller
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135 , 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 , 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying the Spencer standard to civil litigants). 2019See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135 , 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 , 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying the Spencer standard to civil litigants). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Ocha v. State
green
2 sentences2017The trial court also “recognized its duty to independently examine the record for any evidence of mitigation, whether presented by the defendant or not.” Ocha, 826 So. 2d at 962 . 2017The trial court also “recognized its duty to independently examine the record for any evidence of mitigation, whether presented by the defendant or not.” Ocha, 826 So. 2d at 962 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Serrano v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
King v. State
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Snelgrove v. State
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Happ v. Moore green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida red | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Hall v. Florida green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bradley v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Franklin v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Green v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Woodel v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Merck v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Butler v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Troy v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Buzia v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Rimmer v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Blackwood v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Muhammad v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.