State v. Crume
780 So. 2d 341, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4111, 2001 WL 303307
This text of 780 So. 2d 341 (State v. Crume) 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
State v. Crume, 780 So. 2d 341, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4111, 2001 WL 303307 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).
Opinion
The state appeals a downward departure sentence. The lowest sentence called for by the guidelines was 60.7 months, and the court sentenced the defendant to 50 months.
We affirm based on State v. Amodeo, 750 So.2d 664, 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999):
The major difficulty is that the state attorney, at the sentencing hearing, did not clearly raise this ground as an objection to the oral reasons given by the trial judge. Under section 924.051, an appeal may not be taken unless prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. To be preserved, .an issue must be timely raised and ruled on by the trial court. The issue must be sufficiently precise that it fairly apprises the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds for the objection. 924.051(l)(b).
See also State v. Mae, 706 So.2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
State v. Mae
706 So. 2d 350 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Amodeo
750 So. 2d 664 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
780 So. 2d 341, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4111, 2001 WL 303307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crume-fladistctapp-2001.