Shabazz v. State

930 So. 2d 796, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8703, 2006 WL 1468353
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shabazz v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 955 So. 2d 57
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 31, 2006·No. No. 1D04-5343·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant directly challenges his sentence to three consecutive life terms arising out of his conviction on three counts of attempted first-degree murder. Appellant has not preserved this issue for direct appeal. “The failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3.800(b) or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses [a defendant] from raising the error on direct appeal.” Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003). Therefore, Appellant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

BENTON, POLSTON and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Shabazz v. State, 930 So. 2d 796, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8703, 2006 WL 1468353 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

930 So. 2d 796 (Shabazz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brannon v. State
850 So. 2d 452 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)