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 1982–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hurst v. Floridagreen2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Finney’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 2018See art, V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const’. ' Finney’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 3 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Floridared2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Finney’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 2018See art, V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const’. ' Finney’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 3 |
Florida v. Hurstred2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Finney’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 2018See art, V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const’. ' Finney’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 3 |
Cleveland v. Sharpgreen2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Finney's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). 2018See art, V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const’. ' Finney’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 2 |
Allen v. Butterworthgreen2 sentences2002NOTES [1] Finney raised the following claims: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in the guilt and penalty phases of the trial; (2) the jury instructions were unconstitutional; (3) newly discovered evidence showed that the conviction and sentence were unreliable; (4) Finney's death sentence rests on an automatic aggravating circumstance; (5) Florida's capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. [2] Finney raises the following claims: (1) the circuit court erred in summarily denying Finney's rule 3.850 claims; (2) the circuit court erred in summarily denying Finney's claim that trial couns 2002NOTES [1] Finney raised the following claims: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in the guilt and penalty phases of the trial; (2) the jury instructions were unconstitutional; (3) newly discovered evidence showed that the conviction and sentence were unreliable; (4) Finney's death sentence rests on an automatic aggravating circumstance; (5) Florida's capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. [2] Finney raises the following claims: (1) the circuit court erred in summarily denying Finney's rule 3.850 claims; (2) the circuit court erred in summarily denying Finney's claim that trial couns | 1 | 1 |
Lucas v. Stategreen1 sentence1995The claim is not properly before the Court because Finney never proffered the testimony he sought to elicit from the witness and the substance of that testimony is not apparent from the record. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991); Lucas v. State, 568 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla. 1990) (proffer necessary to preserve claim that trial court improperly excluded testimony). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018This Court stayed Finney’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 2018This .Court stayed Fin-ney’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2018This Court stayed Finney’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 2018This .Court stayed Fin-ney’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Sedlak v. Smith
green
2 sentences2018Finney responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), and Finney v. State , 235 So.3d 279 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 197 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018), should not be dispositive in this case. 2018This .Court stayed Fin-ney’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Bello v. State
green
2 sentences2003Finney relies on this Court's decision in Bello v. State, 547 So.2d 914 (Fla.1989). 1995Finney relies on this Court's decision in Bello v. State, 547 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1989). | 2 | 1995–2003 |
William H. Kelley v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018Finney responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), and Finney v. State , 235 So.3d 279 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 197 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018), should not be dispositive in this case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gamble v. Florida
neutral
1 sentence2018Finney responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), and Finney v. State , 235 So.3d 279 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 197 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018), should not be dispositive in this case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2009Finney’s plea form was deficient because it “provided the misleading impression that an indigent criminal defendant lacks a right to counsel so long as the trial judge is not currently considering jail time as an appropriate sentence.” Kelly, 999 So.2d at 1036 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence1990In the instant case the district court affirmed the trial court's granting of Finney's motion for postconviction relief and its vacating of one of Finney's convictions based on the retroactive application of Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987), and Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Carawan v. State
red
1 sentence1990In the instant case the district court affirmed the trial court's granting of Finney's motion for postconviction relief and its vacating of one of Finney's convictions based on the retroactive application of Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1987), and Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Frost
green
1 sentence1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Davis v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S 1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wong Sun v. United States
green
2 sentences1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S 1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S 1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Baxter v. State
green
1 sentence1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S 1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Norman v. State
green
1 sentence1982Finney sought to suppress the stolen watch on the ground that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful and that his consent to search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of the watch, was tainted by the stop, see, e.g., Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); he sought to suppress evidence of the out-of-court photographic identification on the ground that the photograph of him was the product of his unlawful detention, see, e.g., Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.