10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
David Kelsey Sparre v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2025Under our precedent, even in cases of a mitigation waiver, the circuit court maintains the “responsibility to consider mitigating evidence in the record.” Bell v. State, 336 So. 3d 211 , 217 (Fla. 2022) (citing Sparre v. State, 164 So. 3d 1183, 1196 (Fla. 2015)). -3- of Corr., No. 3:20-cv-216-TJC-JBT (M.D. 2022However, we have also held that a capital defendant’s mitigation waiver “does not eliminate the court’s responsibility to consider mitigating evidence in the record.” Bell v. State, 336 So. 3d 211 , 217 (Fla. 2022) (citing Sparre v. State, 164 So. 3d 1183, 1196 (Fla. 2015)). | 2 | 2 |
Michael Gordon Reynolds v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Reynolds v. State , 251 So.3d 811 , 829-30, 2018 WL 1633075 , *14 (Fla. Apr. 5, 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how Hurst could have affected defendant's decision to waive mitigation); Grim v. State , 244 So.3d 147 , 148-52, 2018 WL 1531121 , *2-5 (Mar. 29, 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a mitigation waiver affects the Hurst harmless error analysis); Middleton v. State , 42 Fla. L. 2018See, e.g. , Reynolds v. State , 251 So.3d 811 , 829-30 (Fla. 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how Hurst could have affected defendant's decision to waive mitigation); Grim v. State , 244 So.3d 147 , 148-52 (Fla. 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a mitigation waiver affects the Hurst harmless error analysis); Middleton v. State , 42 Fla. L. | 2 | 2 |
Leon Davis, Jr. v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2018Weekly S637 , 2017 WL 2374697 , *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error analysis); see also Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142 , 173-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2218 , 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017). 2018Weekly S637 , --- So.3d ----, ---- - ----, 2017 WL 2374697 , *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error analysis), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 829 , 200 L.Ed.2d 326 (2018) ; see also Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142 , 173-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2218 , 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017). | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. Ryangreen2 sentences2018Weekly S637 , 2017 WL 2374697 , *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error analysis); see also Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142 , 173-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2218 , 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017). 2018Weekly S637 , 2017 WL 2374697 , *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error analysis); see also Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142 , 173-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2218 , 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017). | 2 | 2 |
Grim v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Reynolds v. State , 251 So.3d 811 , 829-30, 2018 WL 1633075 , *14 (Fla. Apr. 5, 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how Hurst could have affected defendant's decision to waive mitigation); Grim v. State , 244 So.3d 147 , 148-52, 2018 WL 1531121 , *2-5 (Mar. 29, 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a mitigation waiver affects the Hurst harmless error analysis); Middleton v. State , 42 Fla. L. 2018See, e.g. , Reynolds v. State , 251 So.3d 811 , 829-30 (Fla. 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how Hurst could have affected defendant's decision to waive mitigation); Grim v. State , 244 So.3d 147 , 148-52 (Fla. 2018) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a mitigation waiver affects the Hurst harmless error analysis); Middleton v. State , 42 Fla. L. | 1 | 2 |
Dennis v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Dennis v. State, 109 So. 3d 680, 698 (Fla. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Ault v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Id. at 188-90 (“However, the rejection of statutory mental health mitigation did not require the trial court to reject brain damage as an independent nonstatutory mitigating factor.”).8 In Oyola, this Court also held that the trial court’s mitigation analysis was insufficient. 99 So. 3d at 446-47 . 2016Id. at 188-90 (“However, the rejection of statutory mental health mitigation did not require the trial court to reject brain damage as an independent nonstatu-tory mitigating factor.”). 8 In Oyóla, this Court also held that the trial court’s mitigation analysis was insufficient. 99 So.3d at 446-47 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waltersgreen1 sentence2011We have held that “[A] crime is committed in an unsophisticated manner when the acts constituting the crime are ‘artless, simple and not refined.’ ” State v. Walters, 12 So.3d 298, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Staffney v. State, 826 So.2d 509, 512-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Staffney v. Stategreen1 sentence2011We have held that “[A] crime is committed in an unsophisticated manner when the acts constituting the crime are ‘artless, simple and not refined.’ ” State v. Walters, 12 So.3d 298, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Staffney v. State, 826 So.2d 509, 512-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Vibrant Video, Inc. v. Dixie Pointe Associatesgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Vibrant Video, Inc. v. Dixie Pointe Assocs., 567 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Muhammad v. State
green
1 sentence2022And, in cases like Fletcher’s where a capital defendant entirely waives the presentation of mitigation, we require the trial court to order a “comprehensive” PSI that “include[s] information such as previous mental health problems (including hospitalizations), school records, and relevant family background.” Muhammad, 782 So. 2d at 363 ; see also Fla. R. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Middleton v. Florida
green
2 sentences2018Weekly S637 , --- So.3d ----, ---- - ----, 2017 WL 2374697 , *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error analysis), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 829 , 200 L.Ed.2d 326 (2018) ; see also Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142 , 173-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2218 , 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017). 2018Weekly S637 , --- So.3d ----, ---- - ----, 2017 WL 2374697 , *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error analysis), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 829 , 200 L.Ed.2d 326 (2018) ; see also Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142 , 173-75 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2218 , 198 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Oyola v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 188-90 (“However, the rejection of statutory mental health mitigation did not require the trial court to reject brain damage as an independent nonstatutory mitigating factor.”).8 In Oyola, this Court also held that the trial court’s mitigation analysis was insufficient. 99 So. 3d at 446-47 . 2016Id. at 188-90 (“However, the rejection of statutory mental health mitigation did not require the trial court to reject brain damage as an independent nonstatu-tory mitigating factor.”). 8 In Oyóla, this Court also held that the trial court’s mitigation analysis was insufficient. 99 So.3d at 446-47 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Groover v. State
green
1 sentence2013Howell v. State, 109 So.3d 763 (Fla.2013). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Escobar v. Escobar
green
1 sentence1977Escobar, supra. By so ruling, we enable the chancellor to more appropriately *947 award alimony based upon the "equity and justice" called for by Section 61.08(2) and more closely align ourselves with our sister courts. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.