Dodson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2013
14 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 655 So. 2d 111 - Reyes v. State · 544 So. 2d 1004 - Wood v. State · 698 So. 2d 533 - State v. Mark Marks, PA · 688 So. 2d 392 - Neal v. State · 638 So. 2d 1024 - Bradshaw 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Following the enactment of section 924.051 and amended rule 3.800(b), this court has issued several decisions on the issue of what constitutes fundamental error in the context of allegations of other various sentencing errors. See, e.g., Howard v. State, 705 So.2d 947 , (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (affirming as unpreserved the trial court's failure to award credit for time served); Cargle v. State, 701 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (affirming as unpreserved a claim that the trial court erred in sentencing juvenile as adult without considering statutory criteria in section 39.059(7)); Johnson v. State, 697 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (affirming as unpreserved a claim that defendant received an improper upward departure sentence because the sole reason given for the departure had already been taken into account in computing his guidelines score); Williams v. State, 697 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (affirming as unpreserved an alleged scoresheet error). We fail to see how the wrongful imposition of a nominal discretionary attorney's fee lien can be deemed any more fundamental than wrongful incarceration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“WHETHER THE WRONGFUL IMPOSITION OF A PUBLIC DEFENDER'S LIEN CONSTITUTES FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MAY BE CHALLENGED ON DIRECT APPEAL WITHOUT HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT, IN LIGHT OF SECTION 924.051(3), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1996), AND AMENDED RULE 3.800(B), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“MR. LANNING: I would object to that scoring on the following grounds: First, the offense itself has been enhanced from regular grand theft which is a level two offense to a level four offense merely by virtue of stealing the firearm. And this would constitute a double enhancement adding additional points when points have already been added because of the offense. Secondly, the statutory reading is ambiguous, or I believe it would require the commission of a separate felony. Here the felony is stealing the firearm. And the statute or the rule, if an offender is convicted of committing or trying to commit any felony other than those enumerated 775.087(2) while having in his possession a firearm an additional eighteen points are added, and I believe that contemplates a separate felony. This is the felony. It’s not — it’s not committing a grand theft while having in his possession a firearm, or trafficking in drugs while having in his possession a firearm. This constitutes the entire crime. And I believe scoring eighteen points would be inappropriate. THE COURT: We had discussed this exact point earlier. It’s the Court’s opinion that the offense itself would not exist without the firearm. The Legislature has determined that grand theft of a firearm is a stand alone sort of offense. Grand theft is a level two offense. Grand theft of a firearm is a level four offense. It seems to me that it’s appropriate to have the firearm enhancement when you can’t have the crime without the fire”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.