859 So. 2d 486 - Fitzpatrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... [W]e presently have the following situation. We have individuals serving sentences for valid convictions of burglary... based on the burglary statute as construed by this Court prior to Delgado . Those sentences are being served in conformity with a construction of the burglary statute which the Legislature has stated was as the Legislature intended. See § 810.015, Fla. Stat. (2001). Those sentences are also being served in conformity with the present application of the burglary statute for offenses committed after July 1, 2001. See § 810.02(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). Yet, we also have individuals such as the defendant in the instant case, who are convicted of committing the same elements of a crime as the individuals described above based on similar facts that occurred during the same time period, who will nonetheless have their convictions reversed because their convictions were not "final" prior to the issuance of Delgado . This is true even though the language of the burglary statute did not change and was precisely the same express language for both those individuals whose convictions were final and those whose convictions were not final prior to Delgado . Furthermore, we have individuals who have yet to be prosecuted for burglary who will potentially receive the benefit of Delgado simply because the events leading to their prosecution were committed on or before July 1, 2001. * * * ... Continuing to follow the Delgado decision ... will result in similar facts receivi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 863 So. 2d 1205 - State v. Ruiz · 861 So. 2d 78 - Burnes v. State

2. “a general verdict is invalid when it rests on multiple bases, one of which is legally inadequate”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 941 So. 2d 1109 - Hannon v. State · 894 So. 2d 832 - Monlyn v. State

3. “discern whether the jury convicted Fitzpatrick based on the legally sufficient grounds . . ., or the inadequate charge of felony murder based on burglary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 918 So. 2d 181 - Brooks v. State