58 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Davis v. State, 928 So.2d 1089, 1120 (Fla.2005) (discussing Davis’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to further a sexual advance defense). 2010See Davis v. State, 928 So.2d 1089, 1118 (Fla.2005) (rejecting Davis’s claim of ineffective assistance based on trial counsel’s alleged failure to question the jurors about their views concerning drugs, alcohol abuse, and mental illness because Davis failed to demonstrate that any unqualified juror served in the case or that any juror was biased or had an animus toward Davis’s theory of the case); cf. Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312, 324 (Fla.2007) (“[Wjhere a postconviction motion alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise or preserve a cause challenge, the defendant m | 2 | 2 |
State v. Owengreen2 sentences2012In Owen , this Court held that the Davis analysis “applies as much to requests to terminate interrogation as it does to requests for counsel.” 696 So.2d at 718 ; see also Berghuis v. Thompkins, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2260 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010) (“There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel....”). 2012In Owen , this Court held that the Davis analysis “applies as much to requests to terminate interrogation as it does to requests for counsel.” 696 So.2d at 718 ; see also Berghuis v. Thompkins, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2260 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010) (“There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel....”). | 1 | 3 |
Way v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Indeed, they stand for the proposition that “evidence is not suppressed where the defendant was aware of the information.” Floyd, 18 So. 3d at 451 (citing Way v. State, 760 So. 2d 903, 911 (Fla. 2000); Tompkins, 872 So. 2d at 239 ; Provenzano v. State, 616 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Cf. Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (concluding, based on nearly identical language in a previous version of the statute, that "[a] defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of the statute").1 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to vacate its order denying relief and to instead enter an order dismissing Davis's motion as unauthorized. | 1 | 1 |
Provenzano v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Indeed, they stand for the proposition that “evidence is not suppressed where the defendant was aware of the information.” Floyd, 18 So. 3d at 451 (citing Way v. State, 760 So. 2d 903, 911 (Fla. 2000); Tompkins, 872 So. 2d at 239 ; Provenzano v. State, 616 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Knight v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Davis has simply repackaged one of his postconviction claims as a habeas claim, and “[d]efendants cannot relitigate the substance of postconviction claims in a habeas petition under the guise of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” Smith v. State, 330 So. 3d 867 , 893 (Fla. 2021); see Calhoun v. State, 312 So. 3d 826 , 854 (Fla. 2019) (concluding that three habeas claims were procedurally barred because they were “permutations of claims” raised in the petitioner’s postconviction motion); Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387, 395 (Fla. 2005) (“[C]laims [that] were raised in [a] postconvicti | 1 | 1 |
Timothy Hampton v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Guerra v. State, 331 So. 3d 746 , 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citing Smith v. State, 126 So. 3d 397, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)); see also Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096, 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (“Gain time, good time, provisional credit time, and additional mitigating credits are all collateral consequences of a guilty plea.”). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Guerra v. State, 331 So. 3d 746 , 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citing Smith v. State, 126 So. 3d 397, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)); see also Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096, 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (“Gain time, good time, provisional credit time, and additional mitigating credits are all collateral consequences of a guilty plea.”). | 1 | 1 |
Elmer v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Elmer v. State , 140 So.3d 1132 , 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (noting that appellant's claim of the lack of opportunity to be heard could have been preserved through a rule 3.800(b) motion). | 1 | 1 |
Mapp v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Mapp v. State , 71 So.3d 776 , 778 (Fla. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Jacoby v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Jacoby v. State, 851 So.2d 913, 914-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (ordering discharge of defendant when denial of dispositive motion to suppress was reversed on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Rutherford v. Mooregreen1 sentence2015See Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 646 (Fla.2000) (holding that appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless issue on appeal) and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
State of Florida v. Anthony Duwayne Horsley, Jr.green1 sentence2015See Horsley, 160 So.3d 393 ; Falcon, 162 So.3d 954 . | 1 | 1 |
| Schoenwetter v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Buenoano v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hill v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Szeremi v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bayer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gore v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Valentine v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mungen v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Huff v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Calhoungreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nicholsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berghuis v. Thompkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allied Discount Tires v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kirbygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Butler v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carratelli v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McNayr v. Kellygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jacobs v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ford v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conahan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. ORANGE COUNTY BD. OF COUNTY COM'RSgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bover v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hurst v. Florida
green
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Davis’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). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Davis’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). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida
red
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Davis’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). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Davis’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). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Davis v. United States
green
2 sentences2017The Court ultimately concluded that because police conducted the search in reliance upon “binding judicial precedent” in their federal district, the “absence of police culpability dooms Davis’s claim [that the exclusionary rule should apply].” Id. at 239-40, 131 S.Ct. 2419 . 2017The Court ultimately concluded that because police conducted the search in reliance upon “binding judicial precedent” in their federal district, the “absence of police culpability dooms Davis’s claim [that the exclusionary rule should apply].” Id. at 239-40 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Tompkins v. State
green
1 sentence2025Indeed, they stand for the proposition that “evidence is not suppressed where the defendant was aware of the information.” Floyd, 18 So. 3d at 451 (citing Way v. State, 760 So. 2d 903, 911 (Fla. 2000); Tompkins, 872 So. 2d at 239 ; Provenzano v. State, 616 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1993)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2025Newly discovered evidence Davis’s claim that the slide contents constitute newly discovered evidence under Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998), is also untimely for having been brought outside the one- year time-limit rule. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2024While the circuit court did not grant an evidentiary hearing on Davis’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the photopack in the present case (the Headley case), the court did grant an evidentiary hearing on Davis’s Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), claims in the BP case, which were also based on the State’s handling of the photopack. - 39 - Greisman identified Davis from the photopack and placed his initials next to Davis’s photo. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Giglio v. United States
green
1 sentence2024While the circuit court did not grant an evidentiary hearing on Davis’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the photopack in the present case (the Headley case), the court did grant an evidentiary hearing on Davis’s Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), claims in the BP case, which were also based on the State’s handling of the photopack. - 39 - Greisman identified Davis from the photopack and placed his initials next to Davis’s photo. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Toney Deron Davis v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2020First, even if Cotton had not testified, “[t]he jury would still be left with the impression . . . that Davis’s defense evolved after he had time to contemplate the situation.” Id. at 1188 . 2020Yet medical testimony “render[ed] Davis’s claim that the child appeared uninjured patently implausible.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018This Court stayed Davis’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 Davis’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). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2018This Court stayed Davis’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 Davis’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). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sedlak v. Smith
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Davis’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). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cleveland v. Sharp
green
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Davis’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). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Florida v. Hurst
red
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Davis’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). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Davis’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). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2015The motion was denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So.3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. — , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 -(2012), did not apply retroactively. 2015The motion was denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So.3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. — , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 -(2012), did not apply retroactively. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gonzalez v. State
green
1 sentence2015The motion was denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So.3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. — , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 -(2012), did not apply retroactively. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Geter v. State
green
1 sentence2015The motion was denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So.3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. — , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 -(2012), did not apply retroactively. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rebecca Lee Falcon v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2015See Horsley, 160 So.3d 393 ; Falcon, 162 So.3d 954 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Green v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In re Gore green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Diaz v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Jenkins v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Oregon v. Elstad green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Meaweather v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Ring v. Arizona green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Gore v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Downs v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Duest v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Stokes v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Haverty v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Cunningham v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Morgan v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Branzburg v. Hayes green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Horne green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
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.