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 1994–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harvey v. Duggergreen2 sentences2017Thus, we consider the issue waived for appellate review.”); see also Hodges v. State, 885 So. 2d 338, 357 (Fla. 2004) (“[T]he substantive issue underlying Hodges’ claim is procedurally barred because Hodges could have but did not raise the argument on appeal.” (citing Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So. 2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 1995)). 2017Thus, we consider the issue waived for appellate review.”); see also Hodges v. State, 885 So.2d 338, 357 (Fla. 2004) (“[T]he substantive issue underlying Hodges’ claim is proeedurally barred because Hodges could have but did not raise the argument on appeal.” (citing Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 1995)). | 3 | 3 |
Hodges v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Thus, we consider the issue waived for appellate review.”); see also Hodges v. State, 885 So. 2d 338, 357 (Fla. 2004) (“[T]he substantive issue underlying Hodges’ claim is procedurally barred because Hodges could have but did not raise the argument on appeal.” (citing Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So. 2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 1995)). 2017Thus, we consider the issue waived for appellate review.”); see also Hodges v. State, 885 So.2d 338, 357 (Fla. 2004) (“[T]he substantive issue underlying Hodges’ claim is proeedurally barred because Hodges could have but did not raise the argument on appeal.” (citing Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 1995)). | 2 | 2 |
Hodges v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Hodges II, 619 So.2d at 273 . 1994Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993). | 2 | 2 |
Hodges v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Moreover, this Court's comparison of Hodges' claim to Jackson — a case in which error was preserved through contemporaneous objection — coupled with the use of the phrase "harmless error," see id., belies the contention that the Court applied a fundamental error analysis to the claim. 2004See id. | 1 | 1 |
Arbelaez v. Stategreen2 sentences2004A motion to disqualify will be dismissed as legally insufficient if it "fails to establish a well-grounded fear on the part of the movant that he will not receive a fair hearing." See Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909, 916 (Fla.2000). 2004As Hodges establishes no other basis for a well-grounded fear that he would not receive a fair trial, see Arbelaez, 775 So.2d at 916 , we determine that Judge Maloney did not abuse his discretion in rejecting Hodges' motion to disqualify. | 1 | 1 |
Ragsdale v. Stategreen2 sentences2004This case is like Rose and Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla.2001), where we found trial counsel ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence. 2004This case is like Rose and Ragsdale v. State, 798 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla.2001), where we found trial counsel ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Hodges'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
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Hodges'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 Hodges'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 |
Hurst v. Florida
green
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Hodges'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. Hodges'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 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida
red
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Hodges'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 |
Cleveland v. Sharp
green
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Hodges'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
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Hodges'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 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010ANALYSIS On appeal, Hodges contends that the trial court erred in (A) failing to allow the jury to determine if Hodges was mentally retarded; (B) finding that Hodges was not mentally retarded; (C) ruling that the State could discuss the collateral crime evidence during its rebuttal argument; (D) allowing the collateral crime evidence to become a feature of the trial; (E) refusing to allow Hodges to waive a penalty-phase jury; and (F) denying Hodges’ motion to bar a death sentence based on Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). 2010ANALYSIS On appeal, Hodges contends that the trial court erred in (A) failing to allow the jury to determine if Hodges was mentally retarded; (B) finding that Hodges was not mentally retarded; (C) ruling that the State could discuss the collateral crime evidence during its rebuttal argument; (D) allowing the collateral crime evidence to become a feature of the trial; (E) refusing to allow Hodges to waive a penalty-phase jury; and (F) denying Hodges’ motion to bar a death sentence based on Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hodges v. Florida
neutral
1 sentence1994Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.