STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FREDERICK BROOKS, RESPONDENT
STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
FREDERICK BROOKS, RESPONDENT
789 So. 2d 976
Florida Supreme Court (2001)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 21 cases
Opinion of the Court
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Brooks v. State, 764 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We vacate the decision of the district court and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decisions in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000); McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.2000); and Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000).
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)…fying same question as in Hughes under same circumstances); Enoch v. State, 873 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (per curiam affirmance without opinion citing Figarola). . I disagree with the majority’s reliance on our statement in McGregor v. State, 789 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla.2001), that an Apprendi claim was unpreserved and does not constitute fundamental error to support its holding that Apprendi is not retroactive. The issue in McGregor was whether, in light of Apprendi, the defendant's release must be prove…1 / 2
-
Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014)…edural error in sentencing that could have been preserved and raised on direct appeal. Thus, it was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a).” Plott, 86 So. 3d at 519. In so holding, the district court relied on this Court’s decision in McGregor v. State, 789 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla.2001), which held that an Apprendi error is procedural in nature and must be preserved for review. The First District Court in Hughes resolved a wholly different legal issue. Hughes’s conviction and sentence were final before Apprendi is…
-
McCLOUD v. State, 803 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ssue is resolved. It appears to us that the Florida courts that have considered Apprendi thus far understand the term “statutory maximum” under Florida’s sentencing scheme to be the maximum penalties set forth in section 775.082. McGregor v. State, 789 So. 2d 976 (Fla.2001), approving Kijewski v. State, 773 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review denied, 790 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.2001). See Gilson v. State, 795 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(penetration “is merely a ‘sentencing factor’ that the judge considered in…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
- Freddrick Brooks v. State, 764 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)