HANK JOHNATHAN EDWARDS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
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 appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision to revoke probation. The appellant argued the judge acted as a prosecutor by questioning a probation officer, but the court found this argument unpreserved and not fundamental error.
The appellate court held that the trial court's questioning did not constitute fundamental error. Furthermore, the issue was not preserved for appeal because defense counsel did not object.
[1] An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal if the party failed to object to the alleged error in the trial court.
[2] An unpreserved issue is procedurally barred from appellate review unless it constitutes fundamental error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“First, as is plain on the face of the transcript, defense counsel did not object.”
Establishes that the appellant's argument was not preserved 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 intelligenceHank Johnathan Edwards was found to have willfully violated his probation after an evidentiary hearing. The trial court sentenced him to six years imp…
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
PER CURIAM.
Hank Johnathan Edwards appeals a judgment and sentence arising from the trial court’s finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that Edwards willfully violated his probation. As a result of its finding, the trial court sentenced Edwards to six years, with credit for time served, followed by five years’ probation. Edwards argues the trial court departed from its role as neutral arbiter when it questioned the probation officer to fill in the gap in his testimony on the element of willfulness necessary to revoke probation.
First, as is plain on the face of the transcript, defense counsel did not object. See McKenzie v. State, 29 So. 3d 272, 279 (Fla. 2010) (“McKenzie neither objected to the trial court’s striking of juror Schultz nor did he file a motion to disqualify the trial court based upon this allegedly improper conduct.
Therefore, the instant challenge is unpreserved and procedurally barred for appellate consideration. See Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347, 359 (Fla. 2005) (holding that for an issue to be preserved for appeal, the specific legal argument or ground to be argued must have been presented to the lower court), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1182, 126 S. Ct. 2359, 165 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2006).”).
On the record before us, we do not find that the trial court’s conduct constitutes fundamental error. See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1176 (Fla. 2006) (“In order for an error to be fundamental and justify reversal in the absence of a timely objection, ‘the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’” (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)) (citing State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 645 (Fla. 1991))); Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[N]ot every act or comment that might be interpreted as demonstrating less than neutrality on the part of the judge will be deemed fundamental error.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ike Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960)
- D'Angelo v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2005)
- Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2006)
- McKENZIE v. State, 29 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 2010)
- Hank Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)