Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 756 So. 2d 148 - Altman v. State

756 So. 2d 148 - Altman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 591 So. 2d 930 - Karchesky v. State · 732 So. 2d 323 - DiPietro v. Griefer · 700 So. 2d 95 - Baldwin v. State · 705 So. 2d 1320 - Phillips v. State · 503 So. 2d 1347 - Beasley 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Appellant has not addressed the fact that he did not raise this issue when he first appealed his convictions, even though that is why the trial court denied him relief. We do note that it is well established in death penalty cases that resentencing is an entirely new proceeding. Phillips v. State, 705 So.2d 1320 (Fla.1997). The closest authority we can find which is not a death penalty case is Baldwin v. State, 700 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). In Baldwin the defendant had not attacked the state’s proof of his prior convictions at his original sentencing, but he attempted to challenge them at his resentencing. The trial court held that the issue had been waived, but the second district reversed and held that he was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing. We followed Baldwin in Mills v. State, 724 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Based on these authorities and, because it appears that there may have been a change in the law involving sexual contact, we conclude that the trial court should have allowed appellant to raise this issue at his resentencing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “to determine whether the facts in this case constituted sexual contact which would justify victim injury points under section 921.0011(7), Florida Statutes (1995).”
    1 later decision 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.