Supreme Court of Florida· 2/3/2011

State v. Fleming

Citations

61 So. 3d 399
36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 50
2011 Fla. LEXIS 331
2011 WL 320959

How courts have described this case

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

holding that retroactive application was not required in postconviction proceedings under Apprendi because the determination affected only the procedure for enhancing sentences, and did not affect the finality of convictions
recognizing entitlement to “full panoply of due process rights” at sentencing
“During the pendency of the belated appeal, Fleming filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), claiming that his new sentence violated Apprendi and Blakely.”
granting motion for clarification in part and remanding for harmless error analysis
“[T]he decisional law in effect at the time of a de novo resentencing or before that resentencing is final applies to those proceedings . . . .”
“[B]oth parties may present new evidence bearing on the sentence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Canady, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Labarga, Perry, Polston

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

49 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.