Barnett v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a two day gap between the solicitation conduct and the traveling to meet a minor conduct was a sufficient temporal break
• finding that a two day gap between the solicitation conduct and the traveling to meet a minor conduct was a sufficient temporal break
• affirming a defendant’s solicitation conviction charged as being committed on October 24, 2012, but vacating an October 26, 2012 solicitation conviction charged as occurring on the same date as the defendant’s traveling after solicitation offense
• affirming a defendant’s solicitation conviction charged as being committed on October 24, 2012, but vacating an October 26, 2012 solicitation conviction charged as occurring on the same date as the defendant’s traveling after solicitation offense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Holt v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-08-14· cited 17×
• Hughes v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-10-21· cited 3×
• Samuel D. Straitiff v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-10-13· cited 2×
• MATTHEW JOSEPH DETTLE v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-05-25· cited 1×
• Rodriguez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-04-24· cited 1×
• Joey Hughes v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-10-17

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Shelley v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-03-19· cited 41×
• State v. Murphy
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-10-09· cited 35×
• Hartley v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-01-08· cited 31×
• Pinder v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-11-08· cited 17×