Supreme Court of Florida· 5/11/2000

State v. Jefferson

Citations

758 So. 2d 661
2000 WL 565104

How courts have described this case

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

holding that portions of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act were not limitations on appellate courts’ subject matter jurisdiction, but rather codifications of existing procedural bars
noting that it is an appellate court’s “duty to notice and correct ... fundamental errors even when they have not been identified by the parties”
noting that it is an appellate court’s “duty to notice and correct ... fundamental errors even when they have not been identified by the parties”
noting that Article V, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution both “grants the district courts[] jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals” and “grants criminal defendants a constitutional right to an appeal”
“construing [newly-enacted section 924.051(3)] as merely codifying the existing procedural bars to appellate review both upholds the statute’s constitutionality and is consistent with the actual legislative intent in passing the Act”
“We find it is clear from the language of section 924.051(3) that the Legislature intended to condition reversal of a conviction on the existence of either an error that was preserved and prejudicial or an unpreserved error that constitutes fundamental error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pariente

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.