Skip to main content

Whitehead v. State

Citations

  • 21 So. 3d 157
  • 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16848
  • 2009 WL 3763045

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 trial court was authorized to consider pending charges against the defendant and distinguishing Seays because the defendant in Seays had been acquitted of the pending charge
  • finding that jeopardy did not attach where “the defendant had not been fingerprinted” and “had not left the courtroom”
  • finding that jeopardy did not attach where “the defendant had not been fingerprinted” and “had not left the courtroom”
  • noting that the trial judge “told the defendant that he could say anything he wished, but warned him that his statements could be used in the [pending] case”
  • upholding the consideration of the defendant’s pending charges since (1) they were “relevant to the sentencing because it involved the defendant’s conduct toward minors,” (2) the defendant “was not punished for [the] pending charge,” and (3
  • “A defendant must preserve a sentencing error by objecting at the time of sentencing or in a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).” (citing Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(e))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: May

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 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.