Case Citator › Smith v. State

Smith v. State

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Citation
598 So. 2d 1063
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
1996
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Smith v. State remains controlling on retroactivity for Florida criminal cases pending on direct review, but its written-reasons rationale has a plea-agreement exception. The Florida Supreme Court held in State v. Williams that a valid plea agreement recorded in the case can justify a sentencing departure without separate contemporaneous written reasons.
More on how this was screened

All 30 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed limitation is 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.

30 later cases cite Smith v. State; 30 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 Smith 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

Limited

  • The Florida Supreme Court held that a valid plea agreement in the record removes the need for separate written reasons to justify a sentencing departure, confining the rationale it quoted from Smith.

    State v. Williams · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    In Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1992), Justice Barkett succinctly stated the rationale behind requiring a court to write its reasons for departure at the time of sentencing: ... When a court accepts a valid plea agreement, the rationale underlying contemporaneous *193 written reasons for departure is vitiated. In other words, a departure sentence imposed pursuant to a valid plea agreement does not need written reasons to justify the departure
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Smith 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