Franklin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Franklin v. State

752 So. 2d 1254, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2611, 2000 WL 256064

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Franklin v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 718 So. 2d 902 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 9, 2000·No. No. 1D99-2343·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant argues that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet should have included only 12 community sanction violation points, rather than the 48 that were included. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that this issue was not preserved because the objection made did not apprise the trial court of the ground upon which it was based, and because counsel never requested and obtained a ruling on the objection. § 924.051(1)(b) & (3), Fla. Stat. (1997). To the extent that any error occurred, it is clearly not “fundamental.” Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant argues that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet should have included only 12 community sanction violation points, rather than the 48 that were included. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that this issue was not preserved because the objection made did not apprise the trial court of the ground upon which it was based, and because counsel never requested and obtained a ruling on the objection. § 924.051(1)(b) & (3), Fla. Stat. (1997). To the extent that any error occurred, it is clearly not “fundamental.” Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Franklin v. State, 752 So. 2d 1254, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2611, 2000 WL 256064 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

752 So. 2d 1254 (Franklin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.