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 1965–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Carolina v. Pearcered2 sentences1983Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and argues that the sentence was imposed in violation of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). 1983Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and argues that the sentence was imposed in violation of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). | 1 | 2 |
Exposito v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Section 924.07(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2009), unambiguously authorizes the State to appeal from a criminal “sentence, on the ground that it is illegal.” The majority states that “the Court ‘must give the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning,’ ” majority op. at 472 (quoting Exposito v. State, 891 So.2d 525, 528 (Fla.2004)), but then proceeds to give no consideration to the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the statute. | 1 | 1 |
Bedford v. Stategreen1 sentence1996A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet. [3] See Brown v. State, 664 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (our courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy was sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so). [4] Justice Anstead, then a district court judge, dissented pointing out that to bar relief under rule 3.800(a) because a sentence has been affirmed on appeal, even though the illegal aspect of the sentence was not challenged, would emasculate "t | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence1996A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet. [3] See Brown v. State, 664 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (our courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy was sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so). [4] Justice Anstead, then a district court judge, dissented pointing out that to bar relief under rule 3.800(a) because a sentence has been affirmed on appeal, even though the illegal aspect of the sentence was not challenged, would emasculate "t | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). 1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Gideon v. Wainwrightgreen1 sentence1965See Gideon v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 153 So.2d 299 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Whitfield
green
2 sentences1996A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet. [3] See Brown v. State, 664 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (our courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy was sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so). [4] Justice Anstead, then a district court judge, dissented pointing out that to bar relief under rule 3.800(a) because a sentence has been affirmed on appeal, even though the illegal aspect of the sentence was not challenged, would emasculate "t 1989This court has previously held that Miller violations may be corrected via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) as amended in State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986). | 2 | 1989–1996 |
Snead v. State
green
1 sentence1993Snead v. State, 616 So.2d 964 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Miller v. Florida
green
2 sentences1989He argues that the sentence was imposed in violation of Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 , 107 S.Ct. 2446 , 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). 1989He argues that the sentence was imposed in violation of Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 , 107 S.Ct. 2446 , 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Argersinger v. Hamlin
green
2 sentences1985NOTES [1] Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 provides, in part, that a prisoner in custody may attack the validity of the judgment or the sentence imposed on grounds "that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or of the State of Florida, or that the court was without jurisdiction to enter such judgment or to impose such sentence or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or that his plea was given involuntarily, ..." [2] Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). [3] The Judgment and Sentence form con 1985NOTES [1] Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 provides, in part, that a prisoner in custody may attack the validity of the judgment or the sentence imposed on grounds "that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or of the State of Florida, or that the court was without jurisdiction to enter such judgment or to impose such sentence or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or that his plea was given involuntarily, ..." [2] Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct. 2006 , 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). [3] The Judgment and Sentence form con | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brown v. Allen
green
2 sentences1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). 1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hankerson v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). 1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
MacKey v. United States
green
2 sentences1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). 1980Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. [2] See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246-48 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 681-92 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-79 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1081, 1082 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 536-48 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 424-430 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Weathington v. State
green
1 sentence1978See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Hankerson v. State, 326 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Weathington v. State, 262 So.2d 724 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Hankerson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1978See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Hankerson v. State, 326 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Weathington v. State, 262 So.2d 724 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
STATE EX REL. HUNTLEY BROTHERS, INC. v. Gooding
neutral
1 sentence1973Huntley Bros., Inc. v. Gooding, Fla.App. 1963, 149 So.2d 55 , for the comparable rule in civil cases. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Evans
green
1 sentence1973The rule sets out the grounds upon which post-conviction relief may be granted: "Rule 3.850 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence; Hearing; Appeal "A prisoner in custody under Sentence of a court established by the Laws of Florida claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or of the *411 State of Florida, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Tolar v. State
green
1 sentence1969Tolar v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 1 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1965It permits a prisoner in custody to move to vacate the sentence, “claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or of the State of Florida.” Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 was promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). 1965It permits a prisoner in custody to move to vacate the sentence, “claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or of the State of Florida.” Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 was promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.