Sams 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 the defendant’s pro se demand for speedy trial and motions to dismiss and discharge filed pursuant to rule 3.191(b) were each a “nullity” because the pleadings were filed while the defendant was represented by counsel
• holding that the defendant’s pro se demand for speedy trial and motions to dismiss and discharge filed pursuant to rule 3.191(b) were each a “nullity” because the pleadings were filed while the defendant was represented by counsel
• “Florida courts generally treat pro se motions by defendants who have representation as a nullity, having no legal force or effect.” (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Craven
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-05-02· cited 7×
• Harden v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-10-01· cited 6×
• Cornelius v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-06-27· cited 5×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. DiGuilio
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1986-07-17· cited 2,703×
• Logan v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2003-04-17· cited 223×
• Rodriguez v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2000-02-03· cited 222×
• Lewis v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-02-16· cited 13×
• Thompson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1993-02-19· cited 10×
• Corner v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-03-21· cited 1×