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 2 courts 2006–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2024Based on the panel’s opinions, (a) Chief Judge Edwards and Judge Makar agree that the Melton factors were met while Judge Boatwright disagrees, finding that factors one and three were not met; (b) all judges agree that if the Melton factors 1 were met the remedy for a violation of the right to speedy trial under applicable precedent is to discharge the defendant, see State v. Williams, 791 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 2001); (c) all judges agree that Robinson did not comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, Florida’s speedy trial rule, which would have en 2024Based on the panel’s opinions, (a) Chief Judge Edwards and Judge Makar agree that the Melton factors were met while Judge Boatwright disagrees, finding that factors one and three were not met; (b) all judges agree that if the Melton factors 1 were met the remedy for a violation of the right to speedy trial under applicable precedent is to discharge the defendant, see State v. Williams, 791 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 2001); (c) all judges agree that Robinson did not comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, Florida’s speedy trial rule, which would have en | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Grossgreen2 sentences2024Regardless, even if the trial court made conclusions, rather than factual findings, reversal is only required “[w]hen the appellate court is convinced that an express or inferential finding of the trial court is without support of any substantial evidence, is clearly against the weight of the evidence, or that the trial court has misapplied the law to the established facts.” Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255, 258 (Fla. 1956) (explaining that under these circumstances, the trial court’s decision is “clearly erroneous” and the appellate court will reverse because the trial court has “failed to giv 2024Regardless, even if the trial court made conclusions, rather than factual findings, reversal is only required “[w]hen the appellate court is convinced that an express or inferential finding of the trial court is without support of any substantial evidence, is clearly against the weight of the evidence, or that the trial court has misapplied the law to the established facts.” Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255, 258 (Fla. 1956) (explaining that under these circumstances, the trial court’s decision is “clearly erroneous” and the appellate court will reverse because the trial court has “failed to giv | 1 | 1 |
Jimenez v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056, 1064 (Fla. 2008) (“To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the successive rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004), this Court held that "[i]f a witness would not have been available to testify at trial, then the defendant will not be able to establish deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's failure to call, interview, or investigate that witness." Id. at 583 (footnote omitted). 2006In the instant case, Melton is arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to produce Harris and Sinkfield; Mills , however, involved only newly discovered evidence and not the Strickland performance/prejudice inquiry, which this Court has since applied to claims regarding uncalled witnesses in Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583-84 (Fla.2004). [4] Melton's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate the true nature and extent of Lewis's negotiations with the State is discussed as part of our denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. [ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weed v. State
green
2 sentences2024Id. 1284–85. 2024Id. 1284–85. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jahquell Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2024This Court has recognized the difficulty in establishing the presence of all four Melton elements.2 Davis, 253 So. 3d at 1242 . 2024This Court has recognized the difficulty in establishing the presence of all four Melton elements.2 Davis, 253 So. 3d at 1242 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bulgin v. State
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Melton v. State
green
1 sentence2023Melton, 638 So. 2d at 929 . -4- Melton’s motion is not timely because it was not filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Melton v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Melton'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
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Melton'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
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Melton'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
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Melton'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. Melton'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
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Melton'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
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Melton'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
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Melton'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 |
Melendez v. State
green
2 sentences2006Id. [10] The discussion of the inmate witnesses' credibility was included in the trial court's dismissal of Melton's rule 3.850 motion on the Saylor conviction. [11] Lewis's own testimony regarding his version of events disputes that there was a fight or scuffle between Melton and Carter and states that Melton shot Carter when Lewis was attempting to unlock a side door so they could escape. [12] The jury question requested clarification on the charge of robbery with a firearm. 2006Furthermore, the trial court, citing to Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746 (Fla.1998), [9] questioned the overall *1012 credibility of these witnesses and noted that their versions of events were not even consistent with one another. [10] Regarding Melton's claim that this evidence could be used to exculpate him in the Saylor murder and could therefore rebut one of the aggravators used in sentencing him to death in the instant crime, we also note, again, that Melton raised this same newly discovered evidence claim, based on the same inmate testimony, as a part of his rule 3.850 motion challengin | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.