HERMAN TUCKER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
Herman Tucker appeals a sentence imposed upon resentencing after appeal. He claims the sentence was erroneously enhanced by a law enforcement protection multiplier, which was included on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet pursuant to section 921.0014(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The State concedes that the law enforcement protection multiplier was improperly applied in this case. Tucker failed to first raise this issue in the trial court as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(d). We, therefore, affirm without prejudice to Tucker to file a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Affirmed.
BLUE and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…ved error in the assessment of costs cannot be considered a serious, patent sentencing error that should be corrected on appeal as fundamental in the absence of proper preservation in the trial court. Accord Bain, 730 So. 2d at 305; Gaines v. State, 724 So. 2d 139, 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that [*110] improper imposition of public defender lien is neither fundamental nor serious, patent sentencing error). As with the pending cases in which the defendant asserts error because of a deviation from the or…
-
Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…the defendant’s incarceration or supervision likely would impress us as fundamental. But only in an extreme case would an improper cost assessment or public defender’s lien qualify as fundamental error. See Gaines v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2645, 724 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that improper imposition of public defender lien is neither fundamental nor serious, patent sentencing error). BAIN’S SENTENCES Bain pleaded guilty to robbery without a weapon, a second degree felony. See § 812.13(2)(c)…
-
Lucious Tibbs v. State, 745 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…her discussion. We AFFIRM the sentences without modification, as none of the errors asserted is fundamental. See Locke v. State, 719 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). See also Smith v. State, 723 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and Gaines v. State, 724 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We certify, as a matter of great public importance, the same issue which we certified in Locke: DOES THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ORALLY PRONOUNCE EACH STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED COST INDIVIDUALLY AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING CO…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence