754 So. 2d 100 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
November 2013
most recently cited
31 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 740 So. 2d 520 - Jones v. State · 740 So. 2d 20 - Woods v. State · Pollock v. Couffer · 751 So. 2d 106 - Lewis 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the PRR Act, the Legislature wrote, "Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a court from imposing a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law, pursuant to s. 775.084, or any other provision of law." Sec. 775.082(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). We find that this subsection allows a trial court to impose an HFO sentence on a PRR when the defendant qualifies under both statutes. It does not require a trial court to choose between one or the other. When a defendant receives a sentence like the one in this case, the PRR Act operates as a mandatory minimum sentence. It does not create two separate sentences for one crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a court from imposing a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law, pursuant to s. 775.084 or any other provision of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grant v. State · Walls 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.