SAUSVILLE v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

SAUSVILLE v. State

22 So. 3d 858, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18721, 2009 WL 4403205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 2009

Docket5D08-4053

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 So. 3d 858 (SAUSVILLE 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

SAUSVILLE v. State, 22 So. 3d 858, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18721, 2009 WL 4403205 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ZAMBRANO, R.,

Associate Judge.

Mary Lombardo Sausville appeals her violation of probation sentence on four counts of vehicular homicide. Although Ms. Sausville has presented an interesting argument, this Court is foreclosed from considering it because the issues were not properly raised or preserved below. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“[F]or an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”); Montes v. State, 994 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). As a result, Ms. Saus-ville’s sentence is affirmed. Notwithstanding, Ms. Sausville is free to raise her trial counsel’s failure to seek a recusal of the sentencing judge and present mitigating evidence at sentencing by way of a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

ZAMBRANO, R.,

Associate Judge.

Mary Lombardo Sausville appeals her violation of probation sentence on four counts of vehicular homicide. Although Ms. Sausville has presented an interesting argument, this Court is foreclosed from considering it because the issues were not properly raised or preserved below. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“[F]or an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”); Montes v. State, 994 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). As a result, Ms. Saus-ville’s sentence is affirmed. Notwithstanding, Ms. Sausville is free to raise her trial counsel’s failure to seek a recusal of the sentencing judge and present mitigating evidence at sentencing by way of a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 So. 3d 858, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18721, 2009 WL 4403205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sausville-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack