Sheppard v. State

834 So. 2d 390, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 229, 2003 WL 124318
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 15, 2003·No. No. 3D00-1658·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clifton Deon Sheppard appeals from final judgments of conviction and entry of sentences. We affirm.

Although we deplore the prosecutorial misconduct evident in this case,1 the defendant elected to make no contemporaneous objections. The unobjected-to comments complained of do not rise to the level of fundamental error; they did not destroy the essential fairness of the trial. See Rogers v. State, 783 So.2d 980, 1002 (Fla.2001); Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Scoggins v. State, 691 So.2d 1185, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(“Funda-mental error has been defined as one that goes to the essence of a fair and impartial trial, error so fundamentally unfair as to amount to a denial of due process.”).

Affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Sheppard v. State, 834 So. 2d 390, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 229, 2003 WL 124318 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

834 So. 2d 390 (Sheppard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sheppard v. State
62 So. 3d 14 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Kitt v. State
834 So. 2d 390 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)