Harris v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a facially sufficient claim of Hale violation cannot be established by charging document or \extra-record\ facts
• holding that in the context of a Hale claim, the appellant must identify with particularity the non-hearsay record documents demonstrating that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Theophile v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-09-21· cited 11×
• Lauramore v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-02-16· cited 9×
• Speas v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-10-27· cited 6×
• Taylor v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-11-16· cited 5×
• Martinez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-02-06· cited 4×
• Dunn v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2012-06-15

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hale v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1993-10-14· cited 430×
• Burgess v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2002-10-17· cited 48×
• Wachter v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-03-12· cited 5×
• Harris v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-05-02· cited 4×