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 1989–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sharp v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See id. at 511–12. | 1 | 1 |
Ellerbee v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Mathis’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is left for a rule 3.850 proceeding. 1 “With rare exception, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.” Ellerbee v. State, 87 So.3d 730, 739 (Fla.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Online Satellite Communication v. GMPCS Personal Communication, Inc.green1 sentence2016To meet the rare exception, a defendant must demonstrate not only ineffectiveness on the face of the record and indisputable prejudice, but also “an inconceivable tactical explanation for the conduct.” Morales v. State, 170 So.3d 63, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Interest of Rlr
green
1 sentence1996The majority's reliance upon In re R.L.R., 647 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), is also misplaced and cannot excuse Mathis' failure to object. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Mathis v. State
neutral
1 sentence1990James Mathis appeals the circuit court’s order of February 5, 1990, denying for the second time his pro se “motion for additional jail time credit.” This court initially reviewed Mathis’s motion in Mathis v. State, 549 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Green
red
1 sentence1989Subsequent to the trial court’s denial of Mathis’ motion, the Florida Supreme Court ; ruled that a defendant “is entitled to include earned gain-time when computing time served to credit against the sentence imposed after revocation of probation which is part of a probationary split sentence.” State v. Green, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1989). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.