CESAR OROSCO, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Roach v. State, 842 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
  …821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002). Although Roach’s motion alleged the date of his arrest, the motion was facially insufficient because it did not affirmatively allege that the date of his offense fell within the window created by Taylor. See Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We note that the circuit court did not deny Roach’s motion as facially insufficient. Instead, it denied the motion without prejudice to refile when the Florida Supreme Court completed its review of the Taylor decision. On May 2…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Fillyaw v. State, 853 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
  …(Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent on the face of the record.”); McCabe v. State, 844 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Leath v. State, 805 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Nevertheless, although I believe that Hersey, Carlson, and Jones II were wrongly decided and an ex post facto violation has occurred here, I must apply those decisions as bindin…
• Pena v. State, 853 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
  …(Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent on the face of the record.”); McCabe v. State, 844 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Leath v. State, 805 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Nevertheless, although I believe that Hersey and Carlson were wrongly decided and an ex post facto violation has occurred here, I must apply those decisions as binding precedent…