Golden v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “Assuming arguendo that the trial court properly allowed Golden’s counsel to adopt the pro se motion, the effective date of an adopted pro se motion is the date it is adopted and not the initial date the unauthorized pleading was filed.”
• “Assuming arguendo that the trial court properly allowed Golden’s counsel- to adopt'the pro se motion, the effective- date of an adopted pro se motion is the date it is adopted- and not the initial date the unauthorized pleading was filed.”
• “Assuming arguendo that the trial court properly allowed Golden’s counsel to adopt 7 the pro se motion, the effective date of an adopted pro se motion is the date it is adopted and not the initial date the unauthorized pleading was filed.”
• “Golden is entitled to credit against the reinstated sentence [five years’ probation] for time served in prison on the sentences here vacated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cornelius v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-06-27· cited 5×
• Mitchell E. Fox v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-06-03· cited 4×
• Isla v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-02-12· cited 2×
• 2D15-1642 / Sanders v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-09-07· cited 1×
• Feazell v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-06-05· cited 1×
• Sprott v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-10-23· cited 1×
• Derrick L. Mathis, Jr. v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2024-06-07

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gafford v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-04-26· cited 26×
• State v. Schafer
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-07-10· cited 10×
• State v. Craven
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-05-02· cited 7×