CHARLES CANADA, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for armed robbery because the appellant failed to timely object to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties, thereby failing to preserve the issue for appeal.
Failure to preserve an objection to the trial court's refusal to give a penalty instruction prevents appellate review of that issue.
[1] Failure to timely object to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties does not preserve the issue for appellate review under Florida…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced by the trial court. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Appellant contends on appeal that his conviction and sentence for armed robbery should be reversed because the trial judge refused to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties as requested by appellant.
The Supreme Court has now held that the failure to give the instruction on penalties when requested, constitutes error. Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(d) provides that no party may assign as error on appeal the failure to give an instruction unless he properly objects thereto. Without such timely and proper objection, the failure to give the requested instruction is not preserved for appeal. Kelly v. State, 389 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Even though the opportunity was given by the trial court, no objection was made to the refusal of the trial court to give the requested instruction, so the issue has not been preserved for appeal.
Appellant’s assertion that the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum permitted by law has been answered contrary to his contention in Studstill v. State, 394 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1980)
- Kelly v. State, 389 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Studstill v. State, 394 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)