Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The problem is, however, that we cannot review the appellant’s unpreserved sentencing error claims on the merits. See Craighead v. State, 36 So.3d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 569 (Fla.2008)). Claims that the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either with a contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief. See Jackson, 983 So.2d at 572 (noting that sentencing errors subject to Rule 3.800(b)(2) include written orders that deviate from the oral pronouncement); Evans v. State, 895 So.2d 1292, 1292-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that absent contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, error in non-conforming written sentence and order of probation to oral pronouncement was not preserved for direct appeal). Burney v. State, 114 So.3d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that absent contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, error in non-conforming written revocation of probation to oral pronouncement was unpreserved for direct appeal, citing Evans, 895 So.2d 1292 ). In this case, the appellant concedes the issue was not preserved during sentencing by contemporaneous objection. Likewise, neither the appellant nor the state filed a notice of a pending Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion in this Court prior to the appellant’s filing his initial brief.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Khan v. State