Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/State v. Valdes

State v. Valdes

677 So. 2d 107, 1996 WL 426358
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 31, 1996·No. 96-162·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

677 So.2d 107 (1996)

The STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Jorge L. VALDES, Appellee.

No. 96-162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1996.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Before GODERICH, GREEN and FLETCHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Because the State failed to make a contemporaneous objection on the basis that the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing was insufficient under the Barbera[1]-Herrin[2] rule, the State did not preserve the issue for appellate review. State v. Rodriguez, 673 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Accordingly, *108 the downward departure sentence imposed by the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

NOTES

[1] Barbera v. State, 505 So.2d 413 (Fla.1987).

[2] Herrin v. State, 568 So.2d 920 (Fla.1990).

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

State v. Valdes, 677 So. 2d 107, 1996 WL 426358 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

677 So. 2d 107 (State v. Valdes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. D.S.
760 So. 2d 957 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
State v. Franklin
723 So. 2d 376 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Soto
719 So. 2d 382 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Terrazas
718 So. 2d 379 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Henriquez
717 So. 2d 1087 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Hendon
712 So. 2d 1264 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Bodden
706 So. 2d 120 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)