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 1988–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Silvestrini v. Stategreen1 sentence1995See Silvestrini v. State, 633 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2001Rowan's argument, while facially appealing, ignores the supreme court's decision in Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1992). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Simmons v. State
green
1 sentence1998This court held that "because habitual offender convictions may not be included on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet ... [t]he court should use the original scoresheet with a one-cell bump for the violation of probation." Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Franklin v. State
green
1 sentence1995The state recognizes that Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989), supports Mr. Adams’ argument, but maintains that a different outcome is allowed in this case because the trial court filed reasons for departure at the original sentencing hearing in 1987. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Meadows v. State
red
1 sentence1988The Fourth District in Green followed this court’s decision in Meadows v. State, 498 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), in which we held that since the defendant was not on probation for the primary offense and did not violate probation for that offense, points could be included for legal constraint, but a one cell bump for violation of probation was impermissible. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Parker v. State
green
1 sentence1988The appellant, citing Parker v. State, 478 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), argues that he should not have been scored for victim injury since at the time he was sentenced victim injury had to be an element of the offense to be scored and victim injury is not an element of burglary. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Frick v. State
green
1 sentence1988We receded from Meadows in Frick v. State, 510 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |