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.
11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gore v. Stategreen2 sentences2013“Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.” Id. at 676 ; see also Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla.2001); State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221, 1228 (Fla.2000). 2004See Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla. 2001)(“[o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first ... ”)(quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); Duncan v. State, 525 So.2d 938 , 941 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(declining to adopt as a matter of state constitutional law a standard broader than that stated in Kennedy to determine when double jeopardy will bar retrial following a | 3 | 3 |
Oregon v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2013“Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.” Id. at 676 ; see also Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla.2001); State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221, 1228 (Fla.2000). 2006See Fuente, 549 So.2d at 658 ("`Only where the governmental conduct in question *566 is intended to `goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.'" quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); see also Rodriguez v. State, 622 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that retrial did not violate double jeopardy because prosecutorial misconduct, although present, was not intentional). | 2 | 6 |
JB v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See id. 2001See id. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2013“Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.” Id. at 676 ; see also Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla.2001); State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221, 1228 (Fla.2000). 2005Id. at 657-658; see also Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418 (Fla.2001); State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221 (Fla.2000). | 1 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Fuente, 549 So.2d at 658 ("`Only where the governmental conduct in question *566 is intended to `goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.'" quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); see also Rodriguez v. State, 622 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that retrial did not violate double jeopardy because prosecutorial misconduct, although present, was not intentional). | 1 | 1 |
Fuente v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Fuente, 549 So.2d at 658 ("`Only where the governmental conduct in question *566 is intended to `goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.'" quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); see also Rodriguez v. State, 622 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that retrial did not violate double jeopardy because prosecutorial misconduct, although present, was not intentional). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2013Because I do not believe that the recent case of Chaidez v. United States resolves the Florida appellate “pipeline” issue presented here, I would certify the following question as one of great public importance: May a defendant raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), where the claim is raised within the two-year time limitation of rule 3.850 but where the conviction at issue became final on direct appeal before Padilla was decided? 2013Because I do not believe that the recent case of Chaidez v. United States resolves the Florida appellate “pipeline” issue presented here, I would certify the following question as one of great public importance: May a defendant raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), where the claim is raised within the two-year time limitation of rule 3.850 but where the conviction at issue became final on direct appeal before Padilla was decided? | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Chicone v. State
red
1 sentence2010The statute superseded Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), which had held that the state was required to prove a fourth element of the offense, namely that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the substance. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Duncan v. State
green
1 sentence2004See Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla. 2001)(“[o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first ... ”)(quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); Duncan v. State, 525 So.2d 938 , 941 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(declining to adopt as a matter of state constitutional law a standard broader than that stated in Kennedy to determine when double jeopardy will bar retrial following a | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.