5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guzman v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“Because we review [Booth’s] sentence in the context of a constitutional violation, our review is de novo.” Guzman v. State, 68 So.3d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277, 280 (Fla.2004)). 2013“A review of a sentence in the context of a constitutional violation is subject to de novo review.” Dempsey v. State, 72 So.3d 258, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Guzman v. State, 68 So.3d 295, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). | 4 | 4 |
Zingale v. Powellgreen2 sentences2014“Because we review [Booth’s] sentence in the context of a constitutional violation, our review is de novo.” Guzman v. State, 68 So.3d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277, 280 (Fla.2004)). 2011Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277, 280 (Fla.2004). | 2 | 2 |
Dempsey v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“A review of a sentence in the context of a constitutional violation is subject to de novo review.” Dempsey v. State, 72 So.3d 258, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Guzman v. State, 68 So.3d 295, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2014In Miller,- the Supreme Court- held that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentenc *408 ing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” 132 S.Ct. at 2469 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2013“Reviewing courts, of course, should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes, as well as to the discretion that trial courts possess in sentencing convicted criminals.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). 2013“Reviewing courts, of course, should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes, as well as to the discretion that trial courts possess in sentencing convicted criminals.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.
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.