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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 4, 2013·No. No. 5D12-500·Published

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.

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

Pincite

125 So. 3d 303 (Benabe-Rivera v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related