Case Citator › Davis v. State

Davis v. State

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Citation
661 So. 2d 1193
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1998–2001
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Davis v. State was overruled in part. The Supreme Court of Florida rejected its statement that only a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum can be corrected as illegal under rule 3.800(a).
More on how this was screened

Davis's separate holding that missing written reasons for a sentencing departure do not make an otherwise lawful sentence illegal remains in use. All 33 flagged citations have been read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite Davis v. State; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Davis v. State?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Florida Supreme Court rejected Davis's rule that a sentence must exceed the statutory maximum to qualify as illegal under rule 3.800(a).

    State v. Mancino · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    As is evident from our recent holding in Hopping, we have rejected the contention that our holding in Davis mandates that only those sentences that facially exceed the statutory maximums may be challenged under rule 3.800(a) as illegal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Florida Supreme Court confirmed that its later decisions receded from Davis's statutory maximum restriction while preserving its ruling about missing written departure reasons.

    Carter v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    Accordingly, we implicitly, if not expressly, receded from Davis in Mancino and Hopping to the extent that Davis could be read to limit challenges under rule 3.800(a) to only those sentences that exceed the statutory maximum.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Davis v. State and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace