Benabe-Rivera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benabe-Rivera v. State

125 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 5493484, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15624

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-500

StatusPublished

This text of 125 So. 3d 303 (Benabe-Rivera v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benabe-Rivera v. State, 125 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 5493484, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15624 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003) (holding that “[f]or defendants whose initial briefs were filed after the effective date of rule 3.800(b)(2), the failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3.800(b) or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses them from raising the error on direct appeal”).

PALMER, ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003) (holding that “[f]or defendants whose initial briefs were filed after the effective date of rule 3.800(b)(2), the failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3.800(b) or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses them from raising the error on direct appeal”).

PALMER, ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 3d 303, 2013 WL 5493484, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benabe-rivera-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack