has established defense (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

has established defense in Florida

6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2014 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Sirecigreen
fla · 1987 · cited in 5 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2006–2014
2 sentences

2014See Looney v. State, 941 So.2d 1017, 1027 (Fla.2006) (“This Court has established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on an evaluation conducted by a mental health expert for trial, even if, in retrospect, that evaluation is less than perfect.”) (citing State v. Sired, 502 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1987)).

2013“This Court has established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on the evaluations conducted by qualified mental health experts, even if, in retrospect, those evaluations may not have been as complete as others may desire.” Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 377 (Fla.2007) (citing State v. Sired, 502 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla.1987)).

55
Darling v. Stategreen
fla · 2007 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2011–2013
2 sentences

2013“This Court has established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on the evaluations conducted by qualified mental health experts, even if, in retrospect, those evaluations may not have been as complete as others may desire.” Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 377 (Fla.2007) (citing State v. Sired, 502 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla.1987)).

2011See Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 377 (Fla.2007) (“This Court has established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on the evaluations conducted by qualified mental health experts, even if, in retrospect, those evaluations may not have been as complete as others may desire.”); Sexton v. State, 997 So.2d 1073, 1085 (Fla.2008) (“The fact that Dr. McCraney [postconviction expert], some seven years later, disagreed with the extent or type of testing performed, or the type of mitigation presented, does not mean that trial counsel was deficient at trial.”).

22
Looney v. Stategreen
fla · 2006 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014See Looney v. State, 941 So.2d 1017, 1027 (Fla.2006) (“This Court has established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on an evaluation conducted by a mental health expert for trial, even if, in retrospect, that evaluation is less than perfect.”) (citing State v. Sired, 502 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1987)).

11
Stewart v. Stategreen
fla · 2010 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Even if the original expert’s evaluation “was somehow incomplete or deficient in the opinion of others, trial counsel would not be rendered ineffective for relying on [the] qualified expert evaluation.” Id.; see also Stewart v. State, 37 So.3d 243, 253 (Fla.2010) (“Stewart did not prove that a reasonable trial attorney should have known to not rely on the conclusions offered by the mental health experts who evaluated him.

11
Sexton v. Stategreen
fla · 2008 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011See Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 377 (Fla.2007) (“This Court has established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on the evaluations conducted by qualified mental health experts, even if, in retrospect, those evaluations may not have been as complete as others may desire.”); Sexton v. State, 997 So.2d 1073, 1085 (Fla.2008) (“The fact that Dr. McCraney [postconviction expert], some seven years later, disagreed with the extent or type of testing performed, or the type of mitigation presented, does not mean that trial counsel was deficient at trial.”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Where else courts name it

AL 6 (1926–2009) FL 6 (2006–2014) NC 5 (1966–2006) MS 5 (1987–2006) PA 5 (1978–2023) IL 5 (1920–2010) WV 5 (1950–2024) WA 5 (1927–2022) OR 4 (1899–1994) OH 4 (1947–2020) OK 4 (1907–1955) ND 4 (1906–2006) MT 3 (1944–1989) WY 3 (1989–2012) MN 3 (1979–1981) MI 3 (1939–1965) UT 2 (1926–1999) ID 2 (1989–1992) GA 2 (1997–2002) SD 2 (1929–1984) CA 2 (1916–1968) WI 2 (1878–1923) LA 2 (1936–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check