MICHAEL T. FREDRICKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
MILLS, Judge.
Fredricks contends the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction for the first half of four sentences pursuant to Section 947.-16(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). The crimes were committed on 5 March 1982, and the statute as amended took effect on 20 April 1982. Chapter 82-171, Section 19, Laws of Florida. Nevertheless, we affirm because the issue was not raised below.
Ex post facto application of the retention statute is not fundamental error and objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review. Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Slaughter v. State, 493 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e ex post facto application of Section 27.3455 is not fundamental error and a contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review. See Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982); Fredricks v. State, 440 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Appellants have cited State v. Stacey, 482 So. 2d 1350 (Fla.1985), in support of their argument that their failure to object does not waive this issue because such failur…
-
Cofield v. State, 453 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…f that same statute has been challenged, this court has held: Ex post facto application of the retention statute is not fundamental error and objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review. Fredricks v. State, 440 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Mobley v. State, 447 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA, February 24, 1984). Likewise, where retention of jurisdiction over a portion of a life sentence has been challenged,…
-
Buford Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ntion statute is not fundamental error and objection must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for review by direct appeal.1 Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982); Fredricks v. State, 440 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Gaskins v. State, 415 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. OTT, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . Our holding is without prejudice to appellant seeking relief in the trial…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1982)
- N.U., Inc. v. T & R Seafood, Inc., 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)