Douglas v. State, 163 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
Douglas v. State, 163 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Baron C. Rogers (fladistctapp, 2018-06-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Baron C. Rogers (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
State v. Milici, 219 So. 3d 117 , 121–22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); State v. Lindsay, 163 So. 3d 721, 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Joseph M. Milici
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
We note that, on remand, the trial court may still impose a downward departure sentence “if such a sentence is supported by valid grounds.” State v. Lindsay, 163 So.3d 721, 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Jackson v. State, 64 So.3d 90 (Fla. 2011)).
discussed Cited "see" STATE OF FLORIDA v. ALEX ANTHONY GUERRA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: accord · confidence high
Remorse is defined as “[a] strong feeling of sincere regret and sadness over one’s having behaved badly or done harm; intense, anguished self- reproach and compunction of conscience, esp. for a crime one has committed.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); accord State v. Lindsay, 163 So. 3d 721, 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); see also State v. Milici, 219 So. 3d 117, 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (stating that accepting responsibility for a defendant’s actions is a requisite to a finding of remorse).
Edward T. DOUGLAS
v.
The STATE of Florida
No. 3D15-875.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 29, 2015.
163 So. 3d 721
Douglas T. Edwards, in proper person., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.
Emas, Rothenberg, Wells.
Published
WELLS, Judge.

Douglas Edwards files this petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his pending postconviction motions filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. Because the record below fails to demonstrate that either his Rule 3.850 motion, dated July 29, 2009, or his Rule 3.800 motion, dated October 28, 2014, was ever filed below, we deny the petition without prejudice to petitioner refiling these motions nunc pro tunc in the lower court.