Mills 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
• applying habitual felony offender statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Mills v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2002-06-20· cited 26×
• Roberts v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-03-24· cited 11×
• Gangapersad Ramroop v. State of Florida
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2017-03-30· cited 10×
• State v. Darst
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2002-12-19· cited 3×
• 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×
• Dixon v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-03-27· cited 1×
• Hernandez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-04-10

Cites

7 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×
• Spann v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-09-27· cited 17×
• State v. Crumley
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1987-09-03· cited 13×
• Evans v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1993-10-15· cited 10×
• King v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-07-28· cited 9×
• Oliveira v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-11-24· cited 8×