Edmondson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Edmondson v. State

745 So. 2d 533, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16473, 1999 WL 1112315

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3856

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 745 So. 2d 533 (Edmondson 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

Edmondson v. State, 745 So. 2d 533, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16473, 1999 WL 1112315 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBSTER, J.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises seven issues. We affirm, without discussion, as to six of the seven. We also affirm the seventh. However, because the supreme court has granted review in a prior case involving the same issue, we write briefly.

Appellant argues that, because the trial court failed timely to file written reasons justifying its upward departure sentences, he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. We disagree. Appellant correctly represents that the trial court did not timely file written reasons justifying its upward departure sentences. However, it is undisputed that the trial court did explain on the record at the sentencing hearing why it was imposing the departure sentences. Although appellant’s counsel objected to the reasons announced by the trial court during the sentencing hearing, appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of those reasons on appeal. Appellant did not object in the trial court to the failure timely to file written reasons. Because the issue raised was never presented to the trial court, it was not preserved. In addition, appellant has failed to demonstrate how he has been prejudiced by the failure timely to file written reasons. To the extent that error occurred, it is not “fundamental.” Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we affirm. § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Butler v. State, 723 So.2d 865 [534]*534(Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 735 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1999).

AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

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

WEBSTER, J.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises seven issues. We affirm, without discussion, as to six of the seven. We also affirm the seventh. However, because the supreme court has granted review in a prior case involving the same issue, we write briefly.

Appellant argues that, because the trial court failed timely to file written reasons justifying its upward departure sentences, he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. We disagree. Appellant correctly represents that the trial court did not timely file written reasons justifying its upward departure sentences. However, it is undisputed that the trial court did explain on the record at the sentencing hearing why it was imposing the departure sentences. Although appellant’s counsel objected to the reasons announced by the trial court during the sentencing hearing, appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of those reasons on appeal. Appellant did not object in the trial court to the failure timely to file written reasons. Because the issue raised was never presented to the trial court, it was not preserved. In addition, appellant has failed to demonstrate how he has been prejudiced by the failure timely to file written reasons. To the extent that error occurred, it is not “fundamental.” Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we affirm. § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Butler v. State, 723 So.2d 865 [534]*534(Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 735 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1999).

AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 533, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16473, 1999 WL 1112315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmondson-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack