WALTER MASON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the sentence because the defendant failed to object to the written order of probation or file a timely motion to correct the sentence in the trial court.
The defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals and sentenced to jail and probation. The written order of probation included a special condition to …
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act Of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
After convicting defendant of cruelty to animals, the trial court sentenced him to 60 days in the county jail followed by 24 months probation. In the written order of probation dated September 19, 1996, the trial court imposed the following special condition: “Pay $1,000.00 to animal control trust fund.” On appeal, defendant contends that this part of the written order does not conform to the oral pronouncement at sentencing.
Even if this were the case, because defendant’s sentencing occurred after July 1,1996, this appeal is governed by subsection 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), part of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996. Pursuant to both subsection 924.051(3) and amended Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), affirmance is required because defendant failed to object and further failed to file a motion to correct the sentence within ten days after rendition of the sentence. See Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Clearly, the error here is not fundamental. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); Neal, 688 So. 2d at 396. This is just the type of appeal that should be eliminated by the Criminal Appeal Reform Act. Judge Webster’s observations in Neal are particularly appropriate here:
Any error in appellant’s sentence might easily have been corrected, thereby avoiding expenditure of the time and money associated with this appeal, had he simply brought it to the trial court’s attention pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
688 So. 2d at 396. By failing to follow this simple procedure, defendant wasted his time, the state’s time and this court’s time. The record in this case encompasses nearly four hundred pages. As the state points out, if defendant had raised this issue in the trial court through a timely motion, this alleged error might have easily been corrected.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…error in the written sentence’s failure to conform to the oral pronouncement resulting in extra years of incarceration, but stating that errors in imposing conditions of probation do not constitute serious, patent sentencing errors); Mason v. State, 698 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding an appeal of an unpreserved error in the failure of the written order imposing conditions of probation to conform to the oral pronounce [*105] ment is “just the type of appeal that should be eliminated” by the Act).…
-
Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…(erroneous habitual offender sentence not fundamental error and not reviewable on direct appeal under act). Minor sentencing errors are not fundamental even when it is unlikely that they can be corrected by postconviction motion. See Mason v. State, 698 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ($1000 cost item not orally announced is not fundamental error under act). .Although we agree with much of the discussion in Harriet v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), our decision conflicts with Harriet in holding th…
-
Collins v. State, 732 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…dments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773, 775 (Fla.1996); Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 685 So. 2d 1253, 1271 (Fla.1996); Quesada v. State, 707 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), citing Mason v. State, 698 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Neal, 688 So. 2d at 396. Section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes, provides that: An appeal cannot be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not proper…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)