PARKER

v.

STATE

Citator

Cited By

• Ventura v. State, 29 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
  …t disapprove its reliance upon the rule expressed in Yisrael I. See Yisrael II, 993 So. 2d at 960-61; see also Smith v. State, 990 So. 2d 1162, 1164-65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Parker v. State, 973 So. 2d 1167, 1168-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), review denied, 1 So. 3d 173, 2009 WL 427313 (Fla.2009). Next, the district court improperly utilized an “overwhelming evidence” test when considering whether the impermissible testimony of a witness which clearly undermined and violated the Fifth Amendment right to remain sil…
• THE Florida BAR v. Herman, 8 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 2009)
  …en months and thereafter until he proves rehabilitation. The suspension will be effective, nunc pro tunc, February 7, 2009, the effective date of the discipline that this Court imposed in its January 8, 2009, order. Fla. Bar v. Herman, No. SC07-S63, 1 So. 3d 173, 2009 WL 55936 (Fla. Jan. 8, 2009) (unpublished order). As Herman is currently suspended, he does not need thirty days to close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. Herman shall accept no new business until he is reinstate…
• Canseco v. State, 52 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 2010)
  …apply to litigants who had not yet been made aware of pending removal proceedings or who had not yet made any attempt to have their pleas withdrawn.” Id. at 545-56. Additionally, in Prieto v. State, 989 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) review denied, 1 So. 3d 173 (Fla.2009), the Fourth District explained, “The supreme court did not announce any intent to allow defendants to revive an already stale claim, but rather closed a loophole that resulted in a scenario where a defendant could not file a sufficient cl…