JAMES LAMONT WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the defendant's argument regarding prosecutorial comment on his right to remain silent was not preserved for appeal and, even if it were, it was harmless error. The court also held that the written sentencing order must conform to the oral pronouncement.
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. During closing arguments, the prosecutor allegedly commented on the defendant's right to remain silent. …
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 Written Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, James Lamont Williams, appeals from his conviction and sentence for armed robbery. We affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand with directions.
The defendant argues that during closing argument the prosecutor commented on his right to remain silent, and that as a result, he is entitled to a new trial. The record, however, reflects that the defense counsel’s objection did not raise this specific argument. Since “comments on silence are no longer considered to be fundamental error,” State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla.1985)(citing Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978), receded from in part on other grounds, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986)); see also Wyatt v. State, 578 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 587 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1991), this argument may not be considered on appeal since it was not presented to the trial court, Waterhouse v. State, 596 So. 2d 1008, 1017 (Fla.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 957, 113 S.Ct. 418, 121 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982), and, even if properly preserved for appellate review, the prosecutor’s comment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Varona v. State, 674 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marshall, 476 So. 2d at 154. The defendant’s conviction for armed robbery is affirmed.
However, as the State properly concedes, because the written sentencing order does not “conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence in open court,” Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(quoting Nodal v. State, 650 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)), the sentencing order is reversed and this case remanded for entry of a sentencing order that conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
Affirmed, in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1985)
- Waterhouse v. State, 596 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1992)
- Varona v. State, 674 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Wyatt v. State, 578 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Perez v. Wisconsin, 506 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1992)
- Williams v. Alabama, 506 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1992)
- Rigoberto Nodal v. State, 650 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)