Sochor claim in Florida

6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sochor v. Stategreen fla · 1993 · cited in 5 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2000–2007 2 sentences 2007Id. at 290 ; accord Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct jury on guilty knowledge did not constitute fundamental error in prosecution for possession of cocaine; availability of affirmative defense did not obviate defendant's responsibility to request instruction, issue of defendant's knowledge was not disputed at trial, and evidence did not support a finding of lack of guilty knowledge); Bridges v. State, 878 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that unlike the failure to instruct on an essential element of a crime, t 2004Sochor, 619 So.2d at 293 . *789 And Sochor's claim that execution by electrocution or by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is without merit.	2	5
Muteei v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2000–2007 2 sentences 2007Id. at 290 ; accord Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct jury on guilty knowledge did not constitute fundamental error in prosecution for possession of cocaine; availability of affirmative defense did not obviate defendant's responsibility to request instruction, issue of defendant's knowledge was not disputed at trial, and evidence did not support a finding of lack of guilty knowledge); Bridges v. State, 878 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that unlike the failure to instruct on an essential element of a crime, t 2000Sochor, 619 So.2d at 290 (footnote omitted); see also Muteei v. State, 708 So.2d 626, 627-28 (Fla. 3d DCA) (relying on Sochor to find that the trial court did not commit fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense), review denied, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla.1998). *1269 After reviewing Sochor , we find that, while persuasive, such decision does not control the fundamental error question in this case.	1	2
Wright v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007Id. at 290 ; accord Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct jury on guilty knowledge did not constitute fundamental error in prosecution for possession of cocaine; availability of affirmative defense did not obviate defendant's responsibility to request instruction, issue of defendant's knowledge was not disputed at trial, and evidence did not support a finding of lack of guilty knowledge); Bridges v. State, 878 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that unlike the failure to instruct on an essential element of a crime, t	1	1
Sims v. Stategreen fla · 2000 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla.1999) (holding that execution by electrocution is not cruel and unusual punishment); Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 668 (Fla.2000) (holding that execution by lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment).	1	1
Thompson v. Stategreen fla · 2000 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Thompson, 759 So.2d at 660 (holding that because of petitioner's failure to raise the issue of the record's inadequacy on direct appeal, his postconviction claim on this basis was procedurally barred). [28] We also reject Sochor's claim that the jury instructions unconstitutionally shifted to him the burden of proving that the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances.	1	1
Provenzano v. Mooregreen fla · 1999 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla.1999) (holding that execution by electrocution is not cruel and unusual punishment); Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 668 (Fla.2000) (holding that execution by lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida green fla · 2017 2 sentences 2018This Court stayed Sochor’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 2018This Court stayed So-chor’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 scotus · 2017 2 sentences 2018This Court stayed Sochor’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 2018This Court stayed So-chor’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 scotus · 2017 1 sentence 2018This Court stayed So-chor’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 scotus · 2016 2 sentences 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Sochor’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. Sochor’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 fla · 2016 2 sentences 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Sochor’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Sochor’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 scotus · 2017 1 sentence 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Sochor’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 scotus · 2017 2 sentences 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Sochor’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Sochor’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
Alfaro v. State green fladistctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2007Id. at 290 ; accord Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct jury on guilty knowledge did not constitute fundamental error in prosecution for possession of cocaine; availability of affirmative defense did not obviate defendant's responsibility to request instruction, issue of defendant's knowledge was not disputed at trial, and evidence did not support a finding of lack of guilty knowledge); Bridges v. State, 878 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that unlike the failure to instruct on an essential element of a crime, t	1	2007–2007
Bridges v. State green fladistctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2007Id. at 290 ; accord Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct jury on guilty knowledge did not constitute fundamental error in prosecution for possession of cocaine; availability of affirmative defense did not obviate defendant's responsibility to request instruction, issue of defendant's knowledge was not disputed at trial, and evidence did not support a finding of lack of guilty knowledge); Bridges v. State, 878 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that unlike the failure to instruct on an essential element of a crime, t	1	2007–2007
Goode v. State green fladistctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2007Id. at 290 ; accord Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct jury on guilty knowledge did not constitute fundamental error in prosecution for possession of cocaine; availability of affirmative defense did not obviate defendant's responsibility to request instruction, issue of defendant's knowledge was not disputed at trial, and evidence did not support a finding of lack of guilty knowledge); Bridges v. State, 878 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that unlike the failure to instruct on an essential element of a crime, t	1	2007–2007
United States v. Cronic green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2004It appears that he employed the same "strategy" in both cases. [10] The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 , 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002), makes clear that Sochor's claim is properly analyzed under the two-pronged test of Strickland not under the presumed-prejudice standard of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). 2004It appears that he employed the same "strategy" in both cases. [10] The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 , 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002), makes clear that Sochor's claim is properly analyzed under the two-pronged test of Strickland not under the presumed-prejudice standard of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984).	1	2004–2004
Ake v. Oklahoma green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 2004The fact that Deaton's penalty-phase proceeding was rendered fundamentally unfair by counsel's deficient performance does not answer the relevant question before us: whether Sochor's penalty-phase proceeding was rendered fundamentally unfair. [22] We also reject Sochor's claim that he received a constitutionally inadequate mental health evaluation in violation of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), as a result of his counsel's ineffective assistance. 2004The fact that Deaton's penalty-phase proceeding was rendered fundamentally unfair by counsel's deficient performance does not answer the relevant question before us: whether Sochor's penalty-phase proceeding was rendered fundamentally unfair. [22] We also reject Sochor's claim that he received a constitutionally inadequate mental health evaluation in violation of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), as a result of his counsel's ineffective assistance.	1	2004–2004
Bell v. Cone green scotus · 2002 2 sentences 2004It appears that he employed the same "strategy" in both cases. [10] The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 , 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002), makes clear that Sochor's claim is properly analyzed under the two-pronged test of Strickland not under the presumed-prejudice standard of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). 2004It appears that he employed the same "strategy" in both cases. [10] The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 , 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002), makes clear that Sochor's claim is properly analyzed under the two-pronged test of Strickland not under the presumed-prejudice standard of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984).	1	2004–2004
Ring v. Arizona green scotus · 2002 2 sentences 2004He claims that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial; (2) the State committed a Brady violation by not revealing that it had given Gary Sochor immunity in exchange for his testimony; (3) he received a constitutionally inadequate mental health evaluation; (4) the postconviction circuit court judge should have granted Sochor's motion to disqualify himself; (5) several of his claims were improperly denied by the circuit court without an evidentiary hearing; (6) his trial counsel's failure to object to certain jury instructions was ineffective assista 2004He claims that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial; (2) the State committed a Brady violation by not revealing that it had given Gary Sochor immunity in exchange for his testimony; (3) he received a constitutionally inadequate mental health evaluation; (4) the postconviction circuit court judge should have granted Sochor's motion to disqualify himself; (5) several of his claims were improperly denied by the circuit court without an evidentiary hearing; (6) his trial counsel's failure to object to certain jury instructions was ineffective assista	1	2004–2004

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check