King v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no double enhancement and hence no jeopardy violation on grounds that section 784.07 is not an enhancement statute
• “our supreme court did say [in Merritt that] ‘Section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1995) is an enhancement statute rather than a statute creating and defining any criminal offense.’ This statement by the supreme court should be adhered to by the lower courts”
• applying habitual felony offender statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Mills v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2002-06-20· cited 26×
• Mills v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-12-20· cited 8×
• Darst v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-03-28· cited 3×
• Fussell v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-03-01· cited 2×
• Vucinich v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-01-19· cited 2×
• Nelson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-08-31· cited 2×
• Walker v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-11-30· cited 1×
• Purdy v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-05-09· cited 1×
• Bell v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-10-08

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Merritt v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1998-05-28· cited 36×
• Gayman v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1993-02-11· cited 17×
• Oliveira v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-11-24· cited 8×
• Wilson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-02-18· cited 7×