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 2017–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
William J. Plott v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2026The Plott decision reached this conclusion by relying on the more broadly formulated definition of “illegal sentence” under Mancino— one that “patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations.” Mancino, 714 So. 2d at 433 ; Plott, 148 So. 3d at 95 (“[W]e hold that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Apprendi . . . patently fail to comport with constitutional limitations, and consequently, the sentences are illegal under rule 3.800(a). . . . [C]laims of error under Apprendi . . . are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion . . . .”). 2026The Plott decision reached this conclusion by relying on the more broadly formulated definition of “illegal sentence” under Mancino— one that “patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations.” Mancino, 714 So. 2d at 433 ; Plott, 148 So. 3d at 95 (“[W]e hold that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Apprendi . . . patently fail to comport with constitutional limitations, and consequently, the sentences are illegal under rule 3.800(a). . . . [C]laims of error under Apprendi . . . are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion . . . .”). | 9 | 10 |
Smallridge v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Smallridge v. State , 904 So.2d 601 , 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ; see generally Plott , 148 So.3d at 95 ("[W]e hold that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Apprendi and Blakely patently fail to comport with constitutional limitations, and consequently, the sentences are illegal under rule 3.800(a)."). 2019See Smallridge v. State , 904 So.2d 601 , 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ; see generally Plott , 148 So.3d at 95 ("[W]e hold that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Apprendi and Blakely patently fail to comport with constitutional limitations, and consequently, the sentences are illegal under rule 3.800(a)."). | 3 | 3 |
Reginald Lee Booker, I I I v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2018Cf. Booker v. State , 244 So.3d 1151 , 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (holding that "the second sentence of subsection (10) is unconstitutional *151 under the Sixth Amendment as applied to [the defendant]" because "the trial judge's factual findings-and thereby [the defendant's] enhanced sentence-were neither based on a jury finding that he poses a 'danger to the public' nor limited to only the fact that [the defendant] had prior convictions"); cf. also Plott v. State , 148 So.3d 90 , 95 (Fla. 2014) ("hold[ing] that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Appr 2018Cf Booker v. State, 244 So. 3d 1151, 1164 (Fla. Ist DCA 2018) (holding that “the second sentence of subsection (10) is unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment as applied to [the defendant]” because “the trial judge’s factual findings—and thereby [the defendant’s] enhanced sentence—were neither based on a jury finding that he poses a “danger to the public’ nor limited to only the fact that [the defendant] had prior convictions’’); cf. also Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90, 95 (Fla. 2014) (“hold[ing] that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Apprendi an | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mancino
green
2 sentences2026The Plott decision reached this conclusion by relying on the more broadly formulated definition of “illegal sentence” under Mancino— one that “patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations.” Mancino, 714 So. 2d at 433 ; Plott, 148 So. 3d at 95 (“[W]e hold that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Apprendi . . . patently fail to comport with constitutional limitations, and consequently, the sentences are illegal under rule 3.800(a). . . . [C]laims of error under Apprendi . . . are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion . . . .”). 2026The Plott decision reached this conclusion by relying on the more broadly formulated definition of “illegal sentence” under Mancino— one that “patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations.” Mancino, 714 So. 2d at 433 ; Plott, 148 So. 3d at 95 (“[W]e hold that upward departure sentences that are unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Apprendi . . . patently fail to comport with constitutional limitations, and consequently, the sentences are illegal under rule 3.800(a). . . . [C]laims of error under Apprendi . . . are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion . . . .”). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Jose Martinez v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2017Recently, however, in Martinez v. State, No. SC15-1620, 211 So.3d 989 , 2017 WL 728098 (Fla. Feb. 23, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court declared that an alleged technical-defect in the charging document, which was not preserved at the trial level, does not constitute an “illegal sentence” subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). 2017Recently, however, in Martinez v. State, No. SC15-1620, 211 So.3d 989 , 2017 WL 728098 (Fla. Feb. 23, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court declared that an alleged technical-defect in the charging document, which was not preserved at the trial level, does not constitute an “illegal sentence” subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.