685 So. 2d 1292 - State v. Craft’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 762 So. 2d 879 - Brooks v. State (2000), 780 So. 2d 17 - Gordon v. State (2001)
28 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 Blockburger v. United States · Faretta v. California · Albernaz v. United States · Doerr v. Doerr · MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(4)(a) Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial. (b) The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are: 1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof. 2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. 3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[O]nly an unequivocal assertion of the right to self-representation will trigger the need for a Faretta inquiry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“when a defendant commits separate offenses during the same criminal episode, each involving a firearm, but each having separate and distinct elements, may the defendant be convicted and sentenced for each crime?,”
2 later decisions 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.