8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Petit-Homme v. Stategreen2 sentences2026We held (contrary to the State’s position in this appeal) that “[i]n these circumstances, trial counsel’s knowledge of the plea offer is not imputed to [the defendant] for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception of Rule 3.850(b)(1).” 1 Id. (citing Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)); see also Tribbitt, 339 So. 3d at 1032 (holding that a third party’s knowledge of a plea offer should not be imputed to the defendant for purposes of the two- year deadline in rule 3.850(b)). 2026We held (contrary to the State’s position in this appeal) that “[i]n these circumstances, trial counsel’s knowledge of the plea offer is not imputed to [the defendant] for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception of Rule 3.850(b)(1).” 1 Id. (citing Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)); see also Tribbitt, 339 So. 3d at 1032 (holding that a third party’s knowledge of a plea offer should not be imputed to the defendant for purposes of the two- year deadline in rule 3.850(b)). 1 We acknowledge that the Fifth District has certified conflict with Clark’s and Tribbitt’s ho | 2 | 4 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences2026We held (contrary to the State’s position in this appeal) that “[i]n these circumstances, trial counsel’s knowledge of the plea offer is not imputed to [the defendant] for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception of Rule 3.850(b)(1).” 1 Id. (citing Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)); see also Tribbitt, 339 So. 3d at 1032 (holding that a third party’s knowledge of a plea offer should not be imputed to the defendant for purposes of the two- year deadline in rule 3.850(b)). 2026We held (contrary to the State’s position in this appeal) that “[i]n these circumstances, trial counsel’s knowledge of the plea offer is not imputed to [the defendant] for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception of Rule 3.850(b)(1).” 1 Id. (citing Petit-Homme v. State, 205 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)); see also Tribbitt, 339 So. 3d at 1032 (holding that a third party’s knowledge of a plea offer should not be imputed to the defendant for purposes of the two- year deadline in rule 3.850(b)). 1 We acknowledge that the Fifth District has certified conflict with Clark’s and Tribbitt’s ho | 1 | 5 |
Horn v. Stategreen1 sentence2019P. 3.850(b)(1); see, e.g., Blake v. State, 152 So. 3d 66, 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (declaring that "[a] claim of newly discovered evidence can be an exception to the two-year time limitation in rule 3.850(b)"); Clark v. State, 236 So. 3d 481, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (holding that defense counsel's knowledge of a proposed plea deal could not be imputed to defendant for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception to the two-year limit, and that therefore plea offer could constitute newly discovered evidence allowing defendant to proceed on rule 3.850 motion alleging counsel had provided ineffec | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Regan v. State
green
2 sentences2006Regan, 787 So. 2d at 267 . 2006Regan, 787 So.2d at 267 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
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.