681 So. 2d 1136 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 760 So. 2d 89 - Maddox v. State (2000), 786 So. 2d 1173 - Carter v. State (2001)
93 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 Missouri v. Hunter · Davis v. State · Burdick v. State · 527 So. 2d 1380 - Florida Bar v. Mullins · 500 So. 2d 501 - Williams 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] hybrid split sentence of incarceration under the guidelines followed by probation as an habitual offender, although not authorized by statute or rule, is not an illegal sentence unless the total sentence imposed exceeds the statutory maximum for the particular offense at issue. The defendant in the conflict case apparently agreed to a hybrid split sentence as part of a negotiated plea agreement. While a trial court cannot impose an illegal sentence pursuant to a plea bargain, it can impose a negotiated sentence that is not specifically authorized by statute.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Even where a judge determines that a defendant is an habitual felony offender, the judge can still determine that sentencing under the habitual offender statute is not necessary for the protection of the public. Geohagen v. State, 639 So.2d 611 (Fla.1994). Moreover, the judge need not make a specific finding that an enhanced sentence is not necessary for the protection of the public; the judge necessarily makes such a decision by virtue of sentencing an habitual offender to a more lenient sentence than that required by the habitual felon statute.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Kennedy · Yashus v. State“in fact inconsistent with the plain language of the statute.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. House v. State · Spencer 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.