DOUGLAS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (56 total)

• Dumas v. State, 439 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
  …ly or intelligently given, nor that he was prejudiced by any failure of an in-court examination to ascertain whether the waiver of jury trial was knowing, free and intelligent. See United States v. Tobias, 662 F. 2d 381 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 2908, 73 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1982). The real question presented is whether the record must affirmatively show that a defendant’s waiver of a right to trial by jury was in fact knowing and intelligent. In support of his argument that there is…
• Epprecht v. State, 488 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  …other crimes that we do not know about, it is clear that this too is an impermissible sentencing consideration. United States v. Cavazos, 530 F. 2d 4 (5th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Tobias, 662 F. 2d 381, 388 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 2908, 73 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1982). Because we are “not at liberty to assume that items given such emphasis by the sentencing court, did not influence the sentence,” Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. at 740, 68 S.Ct. at 1255, 92 L.Ed. at 1693, it be…
• Brown v. State, 484 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  ….2d 714, 718-21, 378 N.E. 2d 78, 82-84 (1978). Characterization of the government’s conduct “turns upon the totality of the circumstances with' no single factor controlling.”2 United States v. Tobias, 662 F. 2d 381, 387 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 2908, 73 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1982); see, e.g., Gianni, 678 F. 2d at 960; State v. Hohensee, 650 S.W. 2d 268, 272 (Mo.Ct.App.1982). Applying the “totality of the circumstances” standard and the Cruz objective entrapment test to the instant case…