616 So. 2d 996 - Grimes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

cited by 10 later decisions

states following

September 2014

most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2014

9 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 Mansell v. Mansell · 576 So. 2d 281 - State v. Williams · Burdick v. State · 581 So. 2d 162 - Lott v. State · Brown 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“I believe it appropriate that the Court at this time, first of all, find that you do qualify as a habitual felon offender because of the convictions for felonies within the five years prior to today's date. The Court, however, believes that considering the guideline sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of this case proved at trial, that the imposition of a sentence under the habitual felon saction [sic] is not necessary for the protection of the public because a satisfactory alternative exists in imposing a guideline sentence and, therefore, I shall not impose sentence in accordance with the habitual felon statute, but I shall hereby sentence you to 10 years in the state prison followed by two years' probation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. King v. State · King v. State
“specific findings of fact that show the necessity for an enhanced sentence for the protection of the public from further criminal activity.” Newman v. State, 575 So.2d 724, 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see Arnold, v. State, 566 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1991). . See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 , 104 S.Ct. 2305 , 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984). Compare Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 , 101 S.Ct. 1852 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981) with United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 , 101 S.Ct 426 , 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980). We held in Davis v. State, 587 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) that the trial court's initial decision not to find Davis a habitual offender, after considering the evidence and hearing argument on that issue, constituted an acquittal of a habitual offender sentence. See Brown v. State, 521 So.2d 110 , 112 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 912 , 109 S.Ct. 270 , 102 L.Ed.2d 258 (1988); Donald v. State, 562 So.2d 792, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1991). citing “appellant’s constitutional right to be free of facing double jeopardy,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. King v. State
“appellant's constitutional right to be free of facing double jeopardy,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. King v. State

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.