Capehart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Capehart v. State

148 So. 3d 169, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16745, 2014 WL 5100183

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-5246

StatusPublished

This text of 148 So. 3d 169 (Capehart 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

Capehart v. State, 148 So. 3d 169, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16745, 2014 WL 5100183 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct appeal from a criminal judgment and sentence, Appellant raises two issues. The first issue, which relates to an alleged error in the sentencing process, is without merit, and we do not discuss it further. In the second issue, Appellant contends that the trial court committed a sentencing error by imposing an illegal sentence that included a “no early termination” provision as a condition of his probation. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(e), we are not permitted to consider this claim because it was not preserved for appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 568-69 (Fla.2008).

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we do so without prejudice to Appellant’s raising the unpreserved claim in a proper motion for postconviction relief. See Hope v. State, 134 So.3d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct appeal from a criminal judgment and sentence, Appellant raises two issues. The first issue, which relates to an alleged error in the sentencing process, is without merit, and we do not discuss it further. In the second issue, Appellant contends that the trial court committed a sentencing error by imposing an illegal sentence that included a “no early termination” provision as a condition of his probation. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(e), we are not permitted to consider this claim because it was not preserved for appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 568-69 (Fla.2008).

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we do so without prejudice to Appellant’s raising the unpreserved claim in a proper motion for postconviction relief. See Hope v. State, 134 So.3d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 So. 3d 169, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16745, 2014 WL 5100183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capehart-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack