Darrin Banks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant “need not have been charged or convicted of the new offense constituting the substantive violation in order for a court to sentence a youthful offender in excess of the six-year cap”
• recognizing defendant need not be convicted of substantive offense in order to lose the benefit of the six-year cap
• recognizing defendant need not be convicted of substantive offense in order to lose the benefit of the six-year cap
• on appellate review of order denying motion to correct based on Rule 3.800(a) reviewing court may only consider as “record” for purposes of Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A) attachments to order of denial, not “original sentencing documents” proffered by state on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).