PETER MANNING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant “affirmatively selected” to be sentenced by the trial court under the sentencing guidelines. See § 921.001, Fla.Stat. (1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701. On appeal he challenges for the first time the constitutionality of the application of the above cited statute to the facts of his case. Only challenges which allege facial unconstitutionality of a statute raise a question as to subject matter jurisdiction and are therefore arguable, as fundamental, for the first time on appeal. Thus, the instant challenge was waived by the failure to raise it in the trial court. Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1983); Alexander v. State, 450 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 501 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…lause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the issue of the unconstitutional application of a statute to the facts of a particular case must first have been raised at the trial level. Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1982); Manning v. State, 461 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Appellant failed to raise his equal protection challenge to the trial court and therefore waived his right to raise such a challenge for the first time on appeal. Nevertheless, we find that the trial court erred in denying appe…
-
Davis v. State, 495 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ion is unconstitutional on several grounds. The constitutional issues are raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore we consider them only to the extent that appellant alleges the facial unconstitutionality of the statute. See Manning v. State, 461 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). See also Moosbrugger v. State, 461 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. [*930] 2d DCA), aff'd, 472 So. 2d 742 (Fla.1985). We conclude that the statute is not unconstitutional. Appellant argues that the cost assessment in the statute is unreasonab…
-
Brady v. State, 518 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…er or not the speech complained of was commercial speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Thus, the issue must be raised in the trial court or be deemed waived. See Trushin v. State, supra; Manning v. State, 461 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Springfield v. State, 443 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). A plea of nolo contendere has the same effect as a plea of guilty. Che-sebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1971). A plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of certain const…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1982)
- Alexander v. State, 450 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)