Ishmael 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 such a sentence is illegal and may be corrected pursuant to rule 3.800(a)
• \[S]ection 775.084(1)(a)(3) . . . only prohibits habitualization if both prior offenses are for purchase or possession.\
• \[S]ection 775.084(1)(a)(3) . . . only prohibits habitualization if both prior offenses are for purchase or possession.\ (emphasis added)
• \section 775.084(1)(a)(3.)... only prohibits habitualization if both prior offenses are for purchase or possession\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Perry v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-02-21· cited 27×
• Virgil v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-09-10· cited 8×
• Bradley v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-03-30· cited 1×
• KENTA MOORE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2019-08-21
• PEDRO ARMANDO WALTON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2020-09-23
• Phoenix v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2012-05-02
• Sheppard v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2025-06-06

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Middleton v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-01-22· cited 28×
• Young v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-07-01· cited 9×
• Belton v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-03-22· cited 7×