Telfair v. State
This text of 903 So. 2d 257 (Telfair 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.
Opinion
Mikko TELFAIR, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*258 Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Phil Patterson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Felicia A. Wilcox, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Mikko Telfair appeals the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his probation, arguing that his credit for time served was not properly calculated. He also appeals the trial court's judgment of direct contempt, arguing that the trial court failed to follow the procedures of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
We affirm appellant's sentence upon the revocation of his probation because appellant failed to file a Rule 3.800 motion on the issue or otherwise object to the award of credit and, thus, failed to preserve the issue for appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 98 (Fla.2000) (holding that unpreserved sentencing errors cannot be raised on appeal after the enactment of the 1999 amendments to Rule 3.800(b)); Jones v. State, 876 So.2d 642, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (stating that the court could not address the unpreserved sentencing error, but that this determination was "without prejudice to the Appellant's right to seek collateral relief").
As to the trial court's judgment of direct contempt, we reverse and vacate the related sentence. The trial court failed to afford appellant the opportunity to show cause why he should not be held in contempt before finding appellant in contempt and failed to afford appellant the "opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances," as Rule 3.830 requires. See Garrett v. State, 876 So.2d 24, 25-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); O'Neal v. State, 501 So.2d 98, 99-100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Reversal is "without prejudice to the institution of proper contempt proceedings." Garrett, 876 So.2d at 26.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
PADOVANO, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
903 So. 2d 257, 2005 WL 1199054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telfair-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.