HOWARD WALKER v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court did not err in finding motion for substitute counsel untimely where defendant did not provide basis for motion that justified the inconvenience and delay
• holding that “[n]o more is required” for a § 1326 conviction
• stating that “it has nevertheless been long established that, in order to serve as the basis for conviction, the govern- ment must also adduce some independent corroborating evi- dence.”
• applying three factors, including a weighing of “the timeliness of the motion against any inconvenience or delay that would result from granting the motion”
• applying three factors, including a weighing of \the timeliness of the motion against any inconvenience or delay that would result from granting the motion\
• applying three factors, including a weighing of \the timeliness of the motion against any inconvenience or delay that would result from granting the motion\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).