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.
5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bronk v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Plasencia v. State, 170 So.3d 865, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that an improper upward departure sentence resulting in nine additional years of imprisonment constituted a manifest injustice which precluded the application of collateral estoppel to bar Mr. Plasencia’s claim); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The fact that this court affirmed a denial of [Mr. Bronk’s] claim in a previous postconviction motion does not preclude relief when the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest inj 2013And, as the State concedes, the postconviction court’s previous order denying this claim should not bar relief “because ‘the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice.’ ” Zamora v.State, 96 So.3d 1116 , 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (quoting Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. McBridegreen2 sentences2012The postconviction court denied the instant motion as successive to an earlier motion for jail credit, which was denied, but the instant motion is not barred as successive because “the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice.” Bronk, 25 So.3d at 703 (citing State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003)). 2011See Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The fact that this court affirmed a denial of his claim in a previous postconviction motion does not preclude relief when the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice.” (citing McBride, 848 So.2d at 291 )). | 2 | 3 |
Cillo v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Plasencia v. State, 170 So.3d 865, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that an improper upward departure sentence resulting in nine additional years of imprisonment constituted a manifest injustice which precluded the application of collateral estoppel to bar Mr. Plasencia’s claim); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The fact that this court affirmed a denial of [Mr. Bronk’s] claim in a previous postconviction motion does not preclude relief when the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest inj 2010See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003); Cillo v. State, 913 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Allen v. State, 989 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 2 |
Plasencia v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Plasencia v. State, 170 So.3d 865, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that an improper upward departure sentence resulting in nine additional years of imprisonment constituted a manifest injustice which precluded the application of collateral estoppel to bar Mr. Plasencia’s claim); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The fact that this court affirmed a denial of [Mr. Bronk’s] claim in a previous postconviction motion does not preclude relief when the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest inj | 1 | 1 |
Brinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Plasencia v. State, 170 So.3d 865, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that an improper upward departure sentence resulting in nine additional years of imprisonment constituted a manifest injustice which precluded the application of collateral estoppel to bar Mr. Plasencia’s claim); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The fact that this court affirmed a denial of [Mr. Bronk’s] claim in a previous postconviction motion does not preclude relief when the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest inj | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zamora v. State
neutral
1 sentence2013And, as the State concedes, the postconviction court’s previous order denying this claim should not bar relief “because ‘the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice.’ ” Zamora v.State, 96 So.3d 1116 , 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (quoting Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Doctor v. State
neutral
1 sentence2012The postconviction court denied the instant motion as successive to an earlier motion for jail credit, which was denied, but the instant motion is not barred as successive because “the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice.” Bronk, 25 So.3d at 703 (citing State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lawton v. State
green
1 sentence2010See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003); Cillo v. State, 913 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Allen v. State, 989 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Allen v. State
green
1 sentence2010See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003); Cillo v. State, 913 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Allen v. State, 989 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.