673 So. 2d 580 - Howarth v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We note initially that the trial court's decision to treat Mr. Howarth's petition as a motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850 was correct. Rule 3.850 has, to a large extent, supplanted the writ of error coram nobis remedy. Error coram nobis is now available only to defendants challenging the validity of sentences for which they are no longer in custody. See Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989). But if a defendant's prior conviction is used to enhance a current sentence, the defendant is considered to be in custody for purposes of post-conviction relief. See Bannister v. State, 606 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Duenas v. State, 636 So.2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); McArthur v. State, 597 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Since Mr. Howarth is challenging the validity of his 1987 convictions in an effort to avoid enhancement of his current sentence, he is in custody for purposes of post-conviction review. Thus, his petition was properly considered under rule 3.850.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 887 So. 2d 1214 - Bates v. State

2. “serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. We denied Richardson leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis, stating that Richardson's newly discovered evidence claims had to be brought in accord with rule 3.850. In Richardson , we did recognize that there was a continued limited use for the writ of error coram nobis for prisoners”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 887 So. 2d 1214 - Bates v. State