Case Citator › Pope v. State

Pope 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
561 So. 2d 554
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
35 of 35
Citing cases (total)
35
Treatment dates
1992–1995
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. Pope v. State has been limited. All 35 flagged citations were read.
More on how this was screened

The 3 confirmed treatments listed below confine its guidelines resentencing rule where an earlier appeal was final before Pope or a validly negotiated downward departure preceded a probation violation.

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.

35 later cases cite Pope v. State; 35 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 Pope 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

  • Pope's written-reasons remedy did not control a later probation sentence where the original downward departure was agreed to and valid.

    State v. Hogan · Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal · filed

    We recognize that the appellee has not contested the state's argument that reversal is mandated by Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 1990), receded from by, Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1992) and Blair v. State, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1992), modified by, State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1991), Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1990), and Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1992), which require a guidelines sentence where the trial court has failed to enter written reasons for departure. However, we do not deem those authorities as controlling with respect to a downward departure following a violation of probation, where the initial sentence validly departed downward.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Pope did not reopen a sentencing mandate that became final before Pope was decided.

    Marshall v. State · Florida Third District Court of Appeal · filed

    Pope was announced April 26, 1990. 561 So.2d at 554. ... The recent decision in Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992), does not compel a different result. At the time the mandate issued in the prior appeal, the decision on the sentencing point was final within the meaning of Smith.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Pope did not change the outcome of an ineffective-assistance claim arising from an appeal completed two years before Pope.

    Domberg v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    Not until we rendered our decision in Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1990), did we determine that, on remand from a guidelines departure error, resentencing must be within the guidelines. Pope was issued two years after the conclusion of Domberg I. Consequently, under the circumstances of this case, it is not probable that the jurisdictional issue would have changed the outcome of Domberg's sentence on remand even had it been raised by counsel on appeal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pope 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