360 So. 2d 380 - State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 396 So. 2d 1107 - Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Com'n (1981), 547 So. 2d 925 - State v. Green (1989)
99 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 327 So. 2d 18 - State v. Jones · 328 So. 2d 223 - Watts v. State · Holmes v. State · Heatherly v. State · 324 So. 2d 690 - Moore v. State
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that a trial judge is authorized by Section 948.01(4) [now 948.01(8)] to sentence a defendant to a period of incarceration followed by a period of incarceration followed by a period of probation; (2) that the combined periods at the time of the original sentence cannot exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by statute for the offense charged... .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““There is validity to not allowing probation to extend beyond the period of maximum sentences. First, a penal statute must be strictly construed in favor of those against whom it would operate; and second, to infer , that a court could extend probation beyond such a maximum permitted punishment would lead to unacceptable results.” 360 So.2d at 383 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We reject the District Court's interpretation of Section 948.01(4) which requires the trial judge at the initial sentencing proceeding to impose a total sentence immediately followed by the withholding of a part thereof for use in the event probation is violated. This interpretation is inconsistent with the procedure for straight probation as authorized by Section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes, and in conflict with Section 948.06, Florida Statutes. The latter authorizes the trial judge, upon a finding that probation has been violated, to impose any sentence he might have originally imposed. Section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes, pertaining to placing a defendant on straight probation, requires the court to stay and withhold the imposition of sentence. The only difference in the wording of Section 948.01(4), Florida Statutes, is the addition of the qualifying word "remainder" in the phrase "withhold the imposition of the remainder of sentence." We read this provision of the statute to mean that the time spent in jail must be within any maximum jail sentence which could be imposed. We find no legislative intent to require an initial imposition of the total sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.