failure to comply rule in Florida

8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2019 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
BP v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [6] Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes "fundamental" error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inqu 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 6 Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes “fundamental” error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where-the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inquir	2	2
AP v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [6] Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes "fundamental" error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inqu 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 6 Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes “fundamental” error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where-the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inquir	2	2
JO v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [6] Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes "fundamental" error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inqu 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 6 Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes “fundamental” error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where-the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inquir	2	2
Amerisure Insurance Company-Fl v. Martin Memorial Medicalgreen fladistctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Gooden v. State, 931 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Ensign v. State, 67 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).	1	1
Hagerman v. Hagermangreen fladistctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See Mix, 827 So. 2d at 399 ; see also Hagerman v. Hagerman, 751 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("[T]his and other courts have ruled that the failure to comply with rule 3.840 is fundamental error and no objection is required.").3 3Rule3.840(a) also requires that a reasonable amount of time be provided between the service of the show cause order and the hearing to allow the defendant to -4- The court also failed to follow several other procedures set forth in rule 3.840.	1	1
Mix v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See Mix, 827 So. 2d at 399 ; see also Hagerman v. Hagerman, 751 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("[T]his and other courts have ruled that the failure to comply with rule 3.840 is fundamental error and no objection is required.").3 3Rule3.840(a) also requires that a reasonable amount of time be provided between the service of the show cause order and the hearing to allow the defendant to -4- The court also failed to follow several other procedures set forth in rule 3.840.	1	1
Merrigan v. Merrigangreen fladistctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Merrigan v. Merrigan, 947 So.2d 668, 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).	1	1
JMB v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002See J.M.B. v. State, 800 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that the failure to comply with rule 8.165 is fundamental error); B.I. v. State, 492 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (concluding that trial court erred in failing to renew the offer of counsel at the adjudicatory hearing); In re J.C.S., 560 So.2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that trial court erred in failing to advise child of his right to counsel at sentencing).	1	1
Cole v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See Cole v. State, 714 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
MAF v. State green fladistctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [6] Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes "fundamental" error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inqu 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 6 Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes “fundamental” error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where-the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inquir	3	2001–2001
J.A.S. v. State green fladistctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [6] Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes "fundamental" error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inqu 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 6 Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes “fundamental” error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where-the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inquir	2	2001–2001
SS v. State green fladistctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [6] Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes "fundamental" error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inqu 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 6 Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes “fundamental” error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where-the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inquir	2	2001–2001
PLS v. State green fladistctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [6] Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes "fundamental" error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inqu 2001See, e.g., B.P. v. State, 759 So.2d 741, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); J.A.S., 746 So.2d at 1226 ; P.L.S., 745 So.2d at 557 ; S.S., 744 So.2d at 601 ; M.A.F., 742 So.2d at 535 ; A.P. v. State, 740 So.2d 1241, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); J.O. v. State, 717 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 6 Because these courts find a failure to comply with rule 8.165 constitutes “fundamental” error, they would allow a juvenile to challenge the voluntariness of a plea without requiring that the juvenile first withdraw the plea in those circumstances where-the trial court failed to make the requisite detailed inquir	2	2001–2001
Magwood v. State green fladistctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2019Gooden v. State, 931 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Ensign v. State, 67 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).	1	2019–2019
In Interest of JCS green fladistctapp · 1990 1 sentence 2002See J.M.B. v. State, 800 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that the failure to comply with rule 8.165 is fundamental error); B.I. v. State, 492 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (concluding that trial court erred in failing to renew the offer of counsel at the adjudicatory hearing); In re J.C.S., 560 So.2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that trial court erred in failing to advise child of his right to counsel at sentencing).	1	2002–2002
BI v. State green fladistctapp · 1986 1 sentence 2002See J.M.B. v. State, 800 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that the failure to comply with rule 8.165 is fundamental error); B.I. v. State, 492 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (concluding that trial court erred in failing to renew the offer of counsel at the adjudicatory hearing); In re J.C.S., 560 So.2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that trial court erred in failing to advise child of his right to counsel at sentencing).	1	2002–2002
Deter v. Deter green fladistctapp · 1977 1 sentence 2000See Cole v. State, 714 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).	1	2000–2000
Starchk v. Wittenberg green fladistctapp · 1982 1 sentence 2000See Cole v. State, 714 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).	1	2000–2000
Hunt v. State green fladistctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2000See Cole v. State, 714 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).	1	2000–2000
Giles v. Renew green fladistctapp · 1994 1 sentence 2000See Cole v. State, 714 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).	1	2000–2000
Bray v. Rimes green fladistctapp · 1990 1 sentence 2000See Cole v. State, 714 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).	1	2000–2000
Reins v. Johnson green fladistctapp · 1992 1 sentence 2000See Cole v. State, 714 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).	1	2000–2000

Where else courts name it

CA 12 (1974–2015) TX 8 (1993–2020) FL 8 (2000–2019) IA 7 (1975–2018) UT 3 (2012–2024) MO 2 (1972–1993) IL 2 (1906–2011) MA 2 (1979–2024) CO 2 (1904–1904)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check