Raymond Wayne Breeden v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raymond Wayne Breeden v. State of Florida

226 So. 3d 336, 2017 WL 3584072, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11945

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D14-3749

StatusPublished

This text of 226 So. 3d 336 (Raymond Wayne Breeden v. State of Florida) 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

Raymond Wayne Breeden v. State of Florida, 226 So. 3d 336, 2017 WL 3584072, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11945 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

WINOKUR, J.

Appellant Raymond Wayne Bree-den appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed burglary. Breeden has identified numerous improper comments the prosecutor made in voir dire, in cross-examining him, and in closing argument. However, Breeden objected to none of these improper comments. *

“As a general rule, ... failing to raise a contemporaneous objection when improper closing argument comments are made waives any claim concerning such comments for appellate' review.” Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 898 (Fla. 2000). “The sole exception to the general’rule is where *337 the unobjected-to comments rise to the level of fundamental error, which has been defined as error that ‘reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have-been obtained without the assistance, of the alleged error.’ ” Id. at 898-99 (quoting McDonald v . State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). While many of the prosecutor’s comments identified by Breeden were improper, after a careful review of the record, we find none of them meet the fundamental-error standard, either individually or cumulatively.

Affirmed.

OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

*

Breeden also identifies some prosecutorial comments to which he did object, but the trial court’s rulings on those objections do not constitute reversible error.

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

WINOKUR, J.

Appellant Raymond Wayne Bree-den appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed burglary. Breeden has identified numerous improper comments the prosecutor made in voir dire, in cross-examining him, and in closing argument. However, Breeden objected to none of these improper comments. *

“As a general rule, ... failing to raise a contemporaneous objection when improper closing argument comments are made waives any claim concerning such comments for appellate' review.” Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 898 (Fla. 2000). “The sole exception to the general’rule is where *337 the unobjected-to comments rise to the level of fundamental error, which has been defined as error that ‘reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have-been obtained without the assistance, of the alleged error.’ ” Id. at 898-99 (quoting McDonald v . State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). While many of the prosecutor’s comments identified by Breeden were improper, after a careful review of the record, we find none of them meet the fundamental-error standard, either individually or cumulatively.

Affirmed.

OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

*

Breeden also identifies some prosecutorial comments to which he did object, but the trial court’s rulings on those objections do not constitute reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 3d 336, 2017 WL 3584072, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-wayne-breeden-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack