Whitsett v. State
870 So. 2d 965, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5840, 2004 WL 894639
Opinion
We affirm based on Krischer v. Faris, 838 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA), prohibition dismissed, 846 So.2d 1148 (Fla.2003), but certify as a question of great public importance the question certified in Harris v. State, 27 Florida Law Weekly D946, — So.2d-, 2002 WL 731699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), rev. granted, 854 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2003):
IS A PLEA AGREEMENT FOR PRISON TIME FOLLOWED BY PROBATION VIOLATED WHEN THE STATE LATER INITIATES DISCRETIONARY CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE JIMMY RYCE ACT (PART V OF CHAPTER 394, FLORIDA STATUTES)? IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST QUESTION, IS THE STATE BARRED BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL FROM SEEKING CIVIL COMMITMENT?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Whitsett v. State, 870 So. 2d 965, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5840, 2004 WL 894639 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).
870 So. 2d 965 (Whitsett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Krischer v. Faris
838 So. 2d 600 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Harris v. State
879 So. 2d 1223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc.
854 So. 2d 598 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2002)