 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Thompson v. State, Case No. 2D05-4641,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in summarily denying defendant's motion for postconviction DNA testing, and finding that defendant's request for the same was moot, as an evidentiary hearing was required in order to provide sworn testimony to support the state's assertion that no physical evidence containing the DNA sought by defendant existed.
|
|||||
| Tubwell v. State, CASE NO. 1D05-1352,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the State presented no evidence upon resentencing to establish the existence of the prior convictions, the trial court erred in overruling defendant's objection to the accuracy of his prior convictions. As the resentencing proceeding was de novo, the State was not relieved of its burden to prove the prior offenses.
|
|||||
| V.D. v. State, Case No. 5D05-1217,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no statutory authority for imposing a monetary fine simply because a juvenile exercised her constitutional right to go to trial. Imposition of a $ 1,000 fine in a juvenile delinquency case based on appellant's decision to go to trial was simply a personal courtroom policy that was not authorized by the law.
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, CASE NO. 1D05-4295,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Woolbright v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, CASE NO. 1D05-3909,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
