M.H., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2019-03-20
No. 3D18-312
Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.
271 So. 3d 138 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2019) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 311 So. 3d 903
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court must timely consider and rule upon post-conviction relief applications that are properly filed, and supervisory writs may issue to compel such action when t…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Joseph v. State, 868 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("[The defendant] was not asked for his opinion of the detective's credibility. [He] was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding the detective as a liar. Asking whether another witness is 'wrong,' 'not accurate,' or 'mistaken' is very different from asking whether the witness is a liar.") (internal citations omitted); U.S. v. Gaines, 170 F.3d 72, 82 (1st Cir. 1999) ("The witness was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding another witness as a liar."); U.S. v. Gaind, 31 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Asking a witness whether a previous witness who gave conflicting testimony is 'mistaken' highlights the objective conflict without requiring the witness to condemn the prior witness a purveyor of deliberate falsehood, i.e., a 'liar.' ").


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Falcon v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
    …401(2) were not supported by competent, substantial evidence. I agree. We review factual findings in a sentencing order under the competent, substantial evidence standard. Jackson v. State, 276 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); J.M.H. v. State, 311 So. 3d 903, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).7 Competent, substantial evidence is “such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred” or such evidence as is “sufficiently relevant and material that a rea…
  • Cruz v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
    …015) (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 471). In response to these decisions, "the Florida legislature 'enact[ed] juvenile sentencing legislation to remedy the federal constitutional infirmities in Florida's juvenile sentencing laws.' " J.M.H. v. State, 311 So. 3d 903, 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Horsley, 160 So. 3d at 401). Among these enactments was section 921.1402, which "provides that a juvenile offender who was sentenced under section 775.082(1)(b) and was not previously convicted of an enumerated offe…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw