Vinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vinson v. State

106 So. 3d 18, 2013 WL 195412, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 756

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 2013

DocketNo. 2D11-2475

StatusPublished

This text of 106 So. 3d 18 (Vinson 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.

Bluebook

Vinson v. State, 106 So. 3d 18, 2013 WL 195412, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 756 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

KHOUZAM, Judge.

Jodi V. Vinson appeals forty-three convictions relating to child pornography. We affirm her convictions in all respects but write to address her argument that the sentencing enhancement as to count forty-three was improper.

Vinson’s sentencing enhancement argument was not raised below, either at sentencing or via motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(b). Because Vinson did not challenge the sentencing enhancement below, her argument is unpreserved. See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003) (“[F]or defendants whose initial briefs were filed after the effective date of rule 3.800(b)(2), the failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3.800(b) or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses them from raising the error on direct appeal”). We make no comments on the merits of Vinson’s claim, as Vinson must first present it below if she is to receive any relief.

Affirmed.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

KHOUZAM, Judge.

Jodi V. Vinson appeals forty-three convictions relating to child pornography. We affirm her convictions in all respects but write to address her argument that the sentencing enhancement as to count forty-three was improper.

Vinson’s sentencing enhancement argument was not raised below, either at sentencing or via motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(b). Because Vinson did not challenge the sentencing enhancement below, her argument is unpreserved. See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003) (“[F]or defendants whose initial briefs were filed after the effective date of rule 3.800(b)(2), the failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3.800(b) or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses them from raising the error on direct appeal”). We make no comments on the merits of Vinson’s claim, as Vinson must first present it below if she is to receive any relief.

Affirmed.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 3d 18, 2013 WL 195412, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinson-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack