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.
6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
CK v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See G.T. v. State, 948 So.2d 900, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing on the basis of fundamental error where "although the trial court informed [juvenile] of his right to counsel, it failed to make a thorough inquiry into [juvenile's] comprehension of the offer of counsel as required by rule 8.165(b)(2)"); C.K. v. State, 909 So.2d 602, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (determining that *1252 the trial court committed fundamental error by, among other things, failing to "have [juvenile's] mother verify on the written waiver that [juvenile's] decision was discussed and appeared to be knowing and voluntary" 2009See G.T. v. State, 948 So.2d 900, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing on the basis of fundamental error where “although the trial court informed [juvenile] of his right to counsel, it failed to make a thorough inquiry into [juvenile’s] comprehension of the offer of counsel as required by rule 8.165(b)(2)”); C.K. v. State, 909 So.2d 602, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (determining that the trial court committed fundamental error by, among other things, failing to “have [juvenile’s] mother verify on the written waiver that [juvenile’s] decision was discussed and appeared to be knowing and voluntary” as re | 2 | 2 |
GT v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See G.T. v. State, 948 So.2d 900, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing on the basis of fundamental error where "although the trial court informed [juvenile] of his right to counsel, it failed to make a thorough inquiry into [juvenile's] comprehension of the offer of counsel as required by rule 8.165(b)(2)"); C.K. v. State, 909 So.2d 602, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (determining that *1252 the trial court committed fundamental error by, among other things, failing to "have [juvenile's] mother verify on the written waiver that [juvenile's] decision was discussed and appeared to be knowing and voluntary" 2009See G.T. v. State, 948 So.2d 900, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing on the basis of fundamental error where “although the trial court informed [juvenile] of his right to counsel, it failed to make a thorough inquiry into [juvenile’s] comprehension of the offer of counsel as required by rule 8.165(b)(2)”); C.K. v. State, 909 So.2d 602, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (determining that the trial court committed fundamental error by, among other things, failing to “have [juvenile’s] mother verify on the written waiver that [juvenile’s] decision was discussed and appeared to be knowing and voluntary” as re | 2 | 2 |
DeFreitas v. Stategreen1 sentence2024To find fundamental error in such a scenario would only encourage “hip pocket appeals.” See DeFreitas v. State, 701 So. 2d 593, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Gunther, J., concurring in result only): To allow broad direct review of a criminal trial on the basis of fundamental error supplies no motivation whatsoever to a defense attorney to object when various errors occur throughout a trial. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2009To warrant reversal on the basis of fundamental error, “the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1176 (Fla.2006) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)). 2009To warrant reversal on the basis of fundamental error, "the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error. " Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1176 (Fla.2006) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)). | 1 | 1 |
Walls v. Stategreen2 sentences2009To warrant reversal on the basis of fundamental error, “the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1176 (Fla.2006) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)). 2009To warrant reversal on the basis of fundamental error, "the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error. " Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1176 (Fla.2006) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)). | 1 | 1 |
Grau v. Branhamgreen1 sentence2008"Fundamental error occurs where the error is so extreme that it could not be corrected by an instruction if an objection had been lodged, and that it so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public's interest in our system of justice justifies a new trial." Grau v. Branham, 761 So.2d 375, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crew v. State
green
1 sentence2019In Crew v. State, 146 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), one of two cases cited by Tally involving reversal on the basis of fundamental error, the prosecutor’s improper comments included: “We're talking about justice for DJ and we're talking about letting that man walk . . . . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.