 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Nesbitt v. State, No. 4D04-1991,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007 Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the sanction of probation was a "sentence" for purposes of applying the sequential conviction requirement of the habitual felony offender statute, § 775.084(5), Fla. Stat. (1999), defendant's probationary sentence was a sufficient predicate.
|
|||||
| Potiris v. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, No. 4D05-3134,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Q.K. v. State, No. 4D05-4856,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial court's order did not explicitly state that a juvenile's sentence for disruption of an educational facility would not run longer than 60 days, the order could be construed as running longer than the statutory maximum provided for in § 877.13, Fla. Stat. (2003); therefore, the order was remanded for correction.
|
|||||
| S.S. v. D.L., No. 4D05-1548,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court failed to find that termination of a father's parental rights was the least restrictive means of ensuring the best interest of his two daughters, and non-expert speculation was an insufficient basis for terminating parent rights, the termination order was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further hearing.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. State, CASE NO. 3D04-104,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was not entitled to jail-credit under § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. for periods of detention under the Baker Act, § 394.463(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat., which were not intended to advance the vindication of criminal ordinances, defendant was not given credit for that period of the 15 years he was found to be incompetent to stand trial.
|
|||||
| Senn v. State, No. 4D05-275,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to redact portion of defendant's statement to police wherein he stated that he wanted an attorney before answering more questions was harmful error. Among other things, there was disputed testimony as to whether defendant had acted in self-defense, and there was evidence to support jury instruction on self-defense.
|
|||||
| Sheehan v. Sheehan, No. 4D05-3243,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Cubic, No. 4D05-3553,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of breath tests results was proper pursuant to § 316.1932(1)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2004), based on the State's use of tap water, and not distilled or de-ionized water, as required by law, in monthly agency inspections of the breath testing instrument.
|
|||||
| State v. Lamm, No. 4D06-1201,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of information as a sanction because of gaps in a videotape of a battery incident was inappropriate. Among other things, nothing indicated counsel's conduct to be willful, and there was no reason to question the State's assertion that the original videotape was still available, albeit not in usable format, without conversion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
