CHARLES T. DAVIS
v.
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.
Charles T. Davis appeals his conviction for burglary with battery. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District, affirms the judgment and sentence, finding the majority of Davis's appellate issues lack merit and concluding that his challenge to investigative costs was not properly preserved for appeal due to lack of contemporaneous objection at sentencing.
The court affirms the judgment and sentence, finding that Davis did not properly preserve the issue regarding investigative costs because he failed to make a contemporaneous objection at sentencing. Although Davis raised the sufficiency of evidence challenge in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion, this procedural vehicle does not preserve the issue for appellate review. The court does not reach the merits of whether the investigative costs had evidentiary support.
[1] A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an award of investigative costs is not preserved for appellate review if not raised by a contemporaneous objecti…
[2] A motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to correct a sentencing error does not preserve for appellate review a challenge to the sufficie…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“[A]n objection to the sufficiency of the proof must be made contemporaneously with the assessment of costs.”
Establishes the preservation requirement that an objection to cost sufficiency must occur at the time costs are assessed at sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was convicted by jury of burglary of a dwelling occupied by another human being. The jury also found that he committed a battery in the course o…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(B)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
WOZNIAK, J.
Charles T. Davis appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following the return of the jury verdict finding him guilty of burglary, with the specific findings that the structure entered was a dwelling occupied by another human being and that he committed a battery in the course of the burglary. We find no merit in the majority of the issues raised by Davis and are unable to reach the final issue he advances, which is his assertion that certain investigative costs were awarded without evidentiary support, because it was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection at sentencing. See State v. Cremers, 319 So. 3d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[A]n objection to the sufficiency of the proof must be made contemporaneously with the assessment of costs.").¹
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
TRAVER, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur. Blair Allen, Public Defender, and David L. Redfearn, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…are unable to reach the final issue he advances, which is his assertion that certain investigative costs were awarded without evidentiary support, because it was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection [*2] at sentencing. See State v. Cremers, 319 So. 3d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[A]n objection to the sufficiency of the proof must be made contemporaneously with the assessment of costs.").¹ Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence. AFFIRMED. TRAVER, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur. Blair Alle…
-
Bartolone v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…’s burden to prove the costs incurred by the prosecution. § 938.27(4), Fla. Stat. (2019). A challenge to whether the State has submitted “sufficient proof of higher costs incurred” must be preserved at the sentencing hearing. State v. Cremers, 319 So. 3d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[A]n objection to the sufficiency of the proof must be made contemporaneously with the assessment of costs. Because the proper documentation of the costs of prosecution is an evidentiary error in the sentencing process…
-
Lucas v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…ial court if he had any argument as to the investigative costs, defense counsel said no. Additionally, appellant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion did not preserve a challenge as to the sufficiency of the investigative cost evidence. See State v. Cremers, 319 So. 3d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[A]n objection to the sufficiency of the proof must be made contemporaneously with the assessment of costs. Because the proper documentation of the costs of prosecution is an evidentiary error in the sentencing process, it…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
- McKnight v. State, 373 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)