green
Positive treatment
6.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knight v. State
In the appellant’s first postconviction motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, he argued the mandatory minimums were “illegal because the jury failed to make a specific finding that he personally possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime.” Knight v. State, 763 So.2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (Knight I).
cited
Cited "see"
Peterhoff v. State
See Pelegrina v. State, 763 So.2d 1231, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Rosa v. State, 742 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Gammon v. State
See Knight v. State, 763 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Raul PELEGRINA
v.
STATE of Florida
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 1D99-256.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jun 6, 2000.
Stephen G. Cobb, Shalimar, for Appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Lawrence, Miner, Webster.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Because the plea agreement permitted a sentence at the trial court’s discretion, we affirm the denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, because it appears from the record that the parties (including appellant and his attorney) may have been under the mistaken impression that the 1995 sentencing guidelines, rather than the 1992, were applicable, and that, pursuant to the latter, the maximum permissible sentence would have been significantly shorter than that imposed pursuant to the former, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right timely to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking to withdraw his plea.