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 2009–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hannum v. Stategreen2 sentences2015A Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentence subsequent to sentencing is “not the proper mechanism for preserving for appeal the issue of whether the court improperly considered certain factors in imposing sentence.” Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (footnote omitted). 2015A Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentence subsequent to sentencing is “not the proper mechanism for preserving for appeal the issue of whether the court improperly considered certain factors in imposing sentence.” Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (footnote omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Initially, we must point out that rule 3.800(b)(2) is not the proper mechanism for preserving for appeal the issue of whether the court improperly considered certain factors in imposing sentence.”); see also Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 572 (Fla.2008) (explaining that rule 3.800(b)(2) is intended to permit defendants to bring to the trial court’s attention errors in sentence-related orders, not any error in the sentencing process). 2009Initially, we must point out that rule 3.800(b)(2) is not the proper mechanism for preserving for appeal the issue of whether the court improperly considered certain factors in imposing sentence. 1 See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla.2008); Brown v. State, 994 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Initially, we must point out that rule 3.800(b)(2) is not the proper mechanism for preserving for appeal the issue of whether the court improperly considered certain factors in imposing sentence. 1 See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla.2008); Brown v. State, 994 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mendez v. State
green
1 sentence2025In the second case, Mendez v. State, 28 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the court addressed whether a vindictive sentencing claim could be raised in the first instance on direct appeal. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Boyd v. State
green
1 sentence2025It held “that rule 3.800(b)(2) is not the proper mechanism for preserving for appeal the issue of whether the court improperly considered certain factors in imposing sentence.” Id. at 135 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.