Skip to main content

Cambridge v. State

Citations

  • 884 So. 2d 535
  • 2004 WL 2289566

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the presumption of vindictiveness remained unrebutted because the “record contain[ed] no explanation of the grounds for the sentence other than the nature of the crime committed, which generally was known to the court prior to the trial”
  • observing that record contained “no explanation of the grounds for the sentence other than the nature of the crime committed, which generally was known to the court prior to the trial”
  • finding an unrebutted presumption of vindictive sentencing where “[t]he record contains no explanation of the grounds for the sentence other than the nature of the crime committed, which generally was known to the court prior to the trial”
  • nature of the crime, generally known prior to trial, is insufficient basis for significantly increased sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Canady

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.