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 2016–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
KEVIN CUTTS v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen2 sentences2019Such a finding shall be based upon whether the person actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim." See Cutts v. State, 225 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that trial court erred in failing to make written findings that are required by section 775.082(1)(b)(3)). 2019Such a finding shall be based upon whether the person actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim." See Cutts v. State, 225 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that trial court erred in failing to make written findings that are required by section 775.082(1)(b)(3)). | 2 | 2 |
Matias v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Matias v. State , 228 So.3d 677 , 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (observing: "We agree ... that it usually may be unnecessary for a court to include language in a sentencing document providing for the right to judicial review of a sentence, as subsection (4) provides that the offender initiates the sentence review by submitting an application to the trial court requesting that a sentence review hearing be held. 2019See Matias v. State , 228 So.3d 677 , 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (observing: "We agree ... that it usually may be unnecessary for a court to include language in a sentencing document providing for the right to judicial review of a sentence, as subsection (4) provides that the offender initiates the sentence review by submitting an application to the trial court requesting that a sentence review hearing be held. | 2 | 2 |
JOHNNY TREVON COOK v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen1 sentence2019See § 775.082(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The court shall make a written finding as to whether a person is eligible for a sentence review hearing under s. 921.1402(2)(a) or (c).”); Cook v. State, 225 So. 3d 268, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming the sentence but remanding for the trial court to enter the written finding required by the applicable provision of section 775.082, Florida Statutes). | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Barnes v. State, 175 So. 3d 380 , 382 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("The statutory provisions governing juvenile sentencing do not apply to the defendant’s five-year sentence for count twenty and his one-year sentence for count twenty-one; thus, resentencing on these counts is not necessary."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2017The defendant in Kelsey, a juvenile nonhomicide offender, had initially received two life sentences, but following the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010),6 the defendant was resentenced to concurrent forty-five-year prison sentences, but without a sentence review hearing. 2017Based on these cases, we conclude that when a juvenile offender is entitled to a sentence review hearing, the trial court is required to review the aggregate sentence the 6 In Graham, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender who did not commit a homicide. 560 U.S. at 74 . 6 juvenile offender is serving in determining whether to modify the offender’s sentence based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. | 3 | 2016–2017 |
Stephen Todd Booker v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2023In Purdy, the Florida Supreme Court considered whether a trial court is required to review the aggregate sentence of a juvenile offender at a sentence review hearing. 252 So. 3d at 724 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Roderick D. Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2018The Fifth District held that the trial court properly denied the motion, but noted that the Alleyne challenge appeared to have merit on the basis that the finding “increases both the mandatory- minimum from zero years to forty years—if the sentencing court determines that life is not an appropriate sentence—and the time for a sentence review hearing from fifteen years to twenty-five years.” Id. at 1072-73 . 2018The Fifth District held that the trial court properly denied the motion, but noted that the Alleyne challenge appeared to have merit on the basis that the finding "increases both the mandatory-minimum from zero years to forty years-if the sentencing court determines that life is not an appropriate sentence-and the time for a sentence review hearing from fifteen years to twenty-five years." Id. at 1072-73 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rebecca Lee Falcon v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018However, the Fifth District explained that in Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2015), this Court stated the trial court was to make the finding of whether the defendant actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim. 2018However, the Fifth District explained that in Falcon v. State , 162 So.3d 954 (Fla. 2015), this Court stated the trial court was to make the finding of whether the defendant actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences2017Additionally, in Thomas v. State, 135 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), a juvenile homicide offender initially received a life sentence for first-degree murder and was resentenced, following Miller, to a term of forty years in prison for the murder and a concurrent thirty years in prison for an armed robbery conviction with no provision for a sentence review hearing. 135 So. 3d at 590–91. 2017Additionally, in Thomas v. State, 135 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), a juvenile homicide offender initially received a life sentence for first-degree murder and was resentenced, following Miller, to a term of forty years in prison for the murder and a concurrent thirty years in prison for an armed robbery conviction with no provision for a sentence review hearing. 135 So. 3d at 590–91. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Abrakata v. State
green
2 sentences2016See Kelsey; Lambert v. State, 170 So.3d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); and Abrakata v. State, 168 So.3d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). 2016See Kelsey; Lambert v. State, 170 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); and Abrakata v. State, 168 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Zachary Lambert v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2016See Kelsey; Lambert v. State, 170 So.3d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); and Abrakata v. State, 168 So.3d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). 2016See Kelsey; Lambert v. State, 170 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); and Abrakata v. State, 168 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.