DAN CLEMMONS, 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.
Dan Clemmons appealed his conviction and sentences, challenging a sentencing condition requiring restitution to the City of Havana for investigative expenses. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the restitution issue was not properly preserved for appellate review because appellant failed to state a specific legal ground for his objection at sentencing.
The court held that appellant failed to preserve the restitution issue for appellate review because he did not clearly state on the record specific legal grounds for his objection to the sentencing condition, as required by Bentley v. State and Steinhorst v. State.
[1] A challenge to a condition of probation must be clearly stated on the record with specific legal grounds for objection to be preserved for appellate review.
[2] For an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as the legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“for an argument to be cognizable on appeal [to show reversible error], it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”
Establishes the requirement that a defendant must state specific legal grounds for objections at sentencing to preserve issues for appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClemmons entered nolo pleas to charges and received concurrent probation sentences with requirements to pay court costs and make restitution to the Ci…
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 Appeal From Conviction And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of judgments of conviction and sentences entered after nolo pleas. Concurrent terms of probation were imposed for each of the offenses, with the further requirement that appellant pay court costs and make restitution to the City of Havana for investigative expense. On .appeal appellant challenges the requirement that he make restitution; we find that the issue was not preserved for appellate review, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
When challenging a condition of probation a defendant “should clearly state of record his objections _” Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), en banc. And “for an argument to be cognizable on appeal [to show reversible error], it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.” Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982). In the present case at the sentencing hearing appellant’s attorney said:
... I was advised in chambers about the court costs going to Havana, and I object to that.
THE COURT: If you can show me where its illegal I’ll reconsider, and put something else in.... I’ll just increase the amount he pays the county. [APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, I have no objection. What I’m trying to get to is the precedent being set .... Appellant stated no other legal ground or specific objection on the record. We therefore conclude, pursuant to Steinhorst and Bentley, that the asserted issue regarding restitution was not preserved for appellate review, and we do not consider the merits of appellant’s challenge here of the particular costs as restitution.1
The appeal is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.
BOOTH, J., concurs.
ERVIN, C.J., dissents with opinion.
. While the Florida Supreme Court has recently expanded the scope of sentencing errors which are cognizable on appeal without objection below so as to include the failure to comply with a mandatory sentencing duty imposed by statute, see State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984), the present case involves no such mandatory duty and Rhoden is therefore inapplicable. See generally, Cofield v. State, 453 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
ERVIN, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the order of dismissal on the same grounds I expressed in my dissent in Cofield v. State, 453 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and would reach the merits of the appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Cofield v. State, 453 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)