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.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steele v. Kehoegreen2 sentences2014P. 3.850(b)(3); see also Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla.1999) (“[D]ue process entitles a prisoner to a hearing on a claim that he or she missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner.”). 2011See Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla.1999) (holding that due process rights entitle a defendant to a hearing on a claim that he missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner); see also Fla. R.Crim. | 5 | 8 |
Ranes v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Cf. Williams v. State, 47 So.3d 906, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding the manifest injustice exception to the res judicata doctrine was applicable when the defendant was sentenced under a version of the sentencing guidelines that was later held to be unconstitutional); Ranes v. State, 913 So.2d 742, 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (determining the manifest injustice exception was applicable when the defendant sufficiently alleged and established that he missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner); State, Dep’ | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Cf. Williams v. State, 47 So.3d 906, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding the manifest injustice exception to the res judicata doctrine was applicable when the defendant was sentenced under a version of the sentencing guidelines that was later held to be unconstitutional); Ranes v. State, 913 So.2d 742, 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (determining the manifest injustice exception was applicable when the defendant sufficiently alleged and established that he missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner); State, Dep’ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weeksgreen1 sentence2001Cf. Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla. 1999) (holding that "due process entitles a prisoner to a hearing on a claim that he or she missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner"); State v. Weeks, 166 So.2d 892, 896 (Fla.1964) (holding that due process requires the appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings if the trial court determines that the petitioner's claims are meritorious and if the potential complexity of the hearing warrants the appointment of counsel and concluding tha | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Petition of Graham ex rel. Nine Condemned Men v. Stategreen1 sentence2000But see Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979) (holding that due process dictates appointment of counsel in certain postconviction proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State on Behalf of DJN v. Redding
green
1 sentence2014Cf. Williams v. State, 47 So.3d 906, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding the manifest injustice exception to the res judicata doctrine was applicable when the defendant was sentenced under a version of the sentencing guidelines that was later held to be unconstitutional); Ranes v. State, 913 So.2d 742, 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (determining the manifest injustice exception was applicable when the defendant sufficiently alleged and established that he missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner); State, Dep’ | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.