Edwards v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If no advance written notice is provided, a sentence as an habitual offender is illegal. Grubbs v. State, 412 So.2d 27 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). See also Nunziata v. State, 561 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (no advance written notice of state's intent to seek enhancement of sentence in accordance with statute, any subsequent habitual offender enhancement is illegal; lack of harm to defendant not the test). The state's contention that appellant was not surprised by the classification is irrelevant because lack of harm to the defendant is not the test used. Nunziata, 561 So.2d at 1331 ; see also Sweat v. State, 570 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (failure to serve advance written notice of state's intent to seek enhanced sentencing constitutes reversible error; defendant need NOT demonstrate harm). (Emphasis in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 589 So. 2d 336 - Massey v. State

2. “On May 8, 1989, appellant negotiated a settlement in which he was to be sentenced to nine years as an habitual felony offender. * * * * * * Appellant's status as an habitual offender was clearly discussed at the May 8 hearing; but the required written notice for sentencing as an habitual offender was not provided to him at that time. Thus, any sentencing over the nine years to which he agreed was not noticed as required by the habitual offender statute. (emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 589 So. 2d 336 - Massey v. State

3. “[i]f the 50 year [sentence] is considered a departure sentence, it is also illegal because no clear and convincing reason for departure supports it”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 609 So. 2d 112 - Gartrell v. State