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 1 courts 2000–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Linnon v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Linnon v. State, 988 So.2d 70, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (adding a mandatory minimum term to the defendant’s sentence was not permitted because it did not benefit the defendant); Thomas v. State, 648 So.2d 298, 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (reducing the defendant’s credit for time served did not correct a clerical error because “the purpose of the order was not to conform the order to the court’s oral pronouncement”). 2013P. 3.800(b) (“Motions may be filed by the state under this subdivision only if the correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant or to correct a scrivener’s error.”); Linnon v. State, 988 So.2d 70, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Linnon v. State, 988 So.2d 70, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (adding a mandatory minimum term to the defendant’s sentence was not permitted because it did not benefit the defendant); Thomas v. State, 648 So.2d 298, 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (reducing the defendant’s credit for time served did not correct a clerical error because “the purpose of the order was not to conform the order to the court’s oral pronouncement”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McMahongreen1 sentence2014Cf. State v. McMahon, 94 So. 3d 468, 477 (Fla. 2012) (holding that trial court’s failure to conduct a hearing on defendant’s habitual felony offender status under section 775.084 did not render a sentence illegal because “the trial court was not mandated to impose an HFO sentence even if a hearing had been held and [the defendant] was proven to qualify”). 9 R. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2008P. 3.800(b); see King, 891 So.2d at 1068 . | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Compare Fillyaw v. State, 734 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve a restitution issue by contemporaneously objecting or filing a rule 3.800(b) motion) with Robinson v. State, 757 So.2d 532, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“The recent amendment does authorize the state to file a motion under rule 3.800(b) but ‘only if the correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant.’ ”) (quoting rule 3.800(b)). | 1 | 1 |
Fillyaw v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Compare Fillyaw v. State, 734 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve a restitution issue by contemporaneously objecting or filing a rule 3.800(b) motion) with Robinson v. State, 757 So.2d 532, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“The recent amendment does authorize the state to file a motion under rule 3.800(b) but ‘only if the correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant.’ ”) (quoting rule 3.800(b)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800
green
1 sentence2000Weekly at S532, ___ So.2d at ___, 1999 WL 1029285 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |