Burrell 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 section 948.30, Florida Statutes (2006), did not apply where the offense was committed prior to the statute’s effective date
• discussing Florida’s version of the Jessica Lunsford Act and noting that “[t]he statute specifically states that it applies to sex offenders whose offenses occurred on or after” the statute’s effective date
• discussing Florida's version of the Jessica Lunsford Act and noting that \[t]he statute specifically states that it applies to sex offenders whose offenses occurred on or after\ the statute's effective date
• remanding to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion “[b]ecause it [was] unclear whether the trial court would have imposed the electronic monitoring as a condition of probation had it known it was not mandatory”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Witchard v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2011-09-07· cited 7×
• Harder v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-07-13· cited 4×
• Donohue v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-03-26· cited 3×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Hill v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-05-10· cited 2×