SMALLWOOD

v.

STATE

Citator

Cited By

• Tajhon Roderick Wilson v. State, 76 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
  …stance of counsel depends on whether intervening crucial stages occur after the initial offer, not the passage of time between the initial offer and a subsequent crucial stage. See Monte v. State, 51 So. 3d 1196, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 68 So. 3d 235 (Fla.2011). The start of trial is considered to be a crucial stage of the proceedings under rule 3.111(d)(5). See Pall v. State, 632 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Bloodsaw v. State, 949 So. 2d 1119, 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Lamb v. State, 53…
• Willis v. State, 148 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
  …se from another district is not the same kind of binding precedent as a Fifth Circuit case in Texas. . It should be noted that Smallwood I was pending on review in the Florida Supreme Court when this cell phone was searched. See Smallwood v. State, 68 So. 3d 235 (Fla.2011) (table decision). There is nothing in the record to establish that the officers in this case actually knew about the holding in the First District and that they were relying on that holding. The exclusionary rule does serve, at least in s…
• State v. Glasco, 90 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
  …f his cell phone, including texts, photographs, and call history. The trial court granted the motion and the State appeals. At the time the trial court rendered its suppression order, Smallwood v. State, 61 So.Bd 448 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 68 So. 3d 235 (Fla.2011), had not been decided. In Smallwood, the court upheld the denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress photographs discovered on the appellant’s cell phone by the arresting officer incident to his arrest. The First District Court surveyed…