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.
10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Narvaez v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Cf. Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“A written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing. 2017“A written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing.” Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (remanding for the entry of a. corrected order of revocation to reflect the conditions of probation the defendant admitted violating). | 2 | 2 |
Martindale v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Martindale v. State, 678 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).[n.3] [n.3]. 2003See Martindale v. State, 678 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). [3] We recognize that the trial court's failure to state during its oral pronouncement of sentence that it was sentencing Ashley as a habitual violent felony offender may have been a simple mistake. | 2 | 2 |
Thomas Kelsey v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2023See also Kelsey v. State, 206 So. 3d 5, 11 (Fla. 2016) (“In 2012, we clarified that jeopardy attaches only to a legal sentence”) (citing Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901, 905 (Fla. 2012)); State v. Swider, 799 So. 2d 388, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“A trial court may vacate an illegal sentence and impose a harsher sentence without violating the defendant's double jeopardy rights”); Spatcher v. State, 228 So. 3d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“We reject Spatcher's suggestion that the oral-pronouncement- controls rule applies only when it benefits the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Swidergreen1 sentence2023See also Kelsey v. State, 206 So. 3d 5, 11 (Fla. 2016) (“In 2012, we clarified that jeopardy attaches only to a legal sentence”) (citing Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901, 905 (Fla. 2012)); State v. Swider, 799 So. 2d 388, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“A trial court may vacate an illegal sentence and impose a harsher sentence without violating the defendant's double jeopardy rights”); Spatcher v. State, 228 So. 3d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“We reject Spatcher's suggestion that the oral-pronouncement- controls rule applies only when it benefits the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Leroy Spatcher v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2023See also Kelsey v. State, 206 So. 3d 5, 11 (Fla. 2016) (“In 2012, we clarified that jeopardy attaches only to a legal sentence”) (citing Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901, 905 (Fla. 2012)); State v. Swider, 799 So. 2d 388, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“A trial court may vacate an illegal sentence and impose a harsher sentence without violating the defendant's double jeopardy rights”); Spatcher v. State, 228 So. 3d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“We reject Spatcher's suggestion that the oral-pronouncement- controls rule applies only when it benefits the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Dunbar v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See also Kelsey v. State, 206 So. 3d 5, 11 (Fla. 2016) (“In 2012, we clarified that jeopardy attaches only to a legal sentence”) (citing Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901, 905 (Fla. 2012)); State v. Swider, 799 So. 2d 388, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“A trial court may vacate an illegal sentence and impose a harsher sentence without violating the defendant's double jeopardy rights”); Spatcher v. State, 228 So. 3d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“We reject Spatcher's suggestion that the oral-pronouncement- controls rule applies only when it benefits the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Margolis v. Stategreen1 sentence2017“A written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing.” Narvaez v. State, 674 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (remanding for the entry of a. corrected order of revocation to reflect the conditions of probation the defendant admitted violating). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ashley v. State
green
2 sentences2007"Generally, the oral pronouncement prevails [over the written sentence] unless the oral pronouncement is in error due to a clerical error such as the calculation of jail credit." Id. at 1268 . 2007In Ashley , cited by the supreme court in Williams, 957 So.2d at 603 , the supreme court stated: "Generally, the oral pronouncement prevails unless the oral pronouncement is in error due to a clerical error such as the calculation of jail credit." Ashley, 850 So.2d at 1268 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2007In Ashley , cited by the supreme court in Williams, 957 So.2d at 603 , the supreme court stated: "Generally, the oral pronouncement prevails unless the oral pronouncement is in error due to a clerical error such as the calculation of jail credit." Ashley, 850 So.2d at 1268 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Dawson/Knapp v. State
green
1 sentence2001Brooks v. State, 768 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So.2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brooks v. State
green
1 sentence2001Brooks v. State, 768 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So.2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Corona v. State
green
1 sentence1996Corona v. State, 642 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Hawthorne v. State, 583 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hawthorne v. State
green
1 sentence1996Corona v. State, 642 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Hawthorne v. State, 583 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hamilton v. State
green
1 sentence1991Hamilton v. State, 578 So.2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.