BRYAN K. EDMONDSON, 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 court affirmed the appellant's conviction and upward departure sentences, holding that the trial court's failure to timely file written reasons for departure sentences was not fundamental error where the reasons were stated on the record at sentencing and the issue was not preserved for appeal.
A trial court's failure to timely file written reasons for upward departure sentences is not fundamental error when the reasons were announced on the record at sentencing and the issue was not preserved for appeal.
[1] A trial court's failure to timely file written reasons for upward departure sentences does not constitute fundamental error where the court stated its reasons on the reco…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Edmondson was sentenced with upward departures from the sentencing guidelines. The trial court explained its reasons for the departures on t…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises seven issues. We affirm, without discussion, as to six of the seven. We also affirm the seventh. However, because the supreme court has granted review in a prior case involving the same issue, we write briefly.
Appellant argues that, because the trial court failed timely to file written reasons justifying its upward departure sentences, he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. We disagree. Appellant correctly represents that the trial court did not timely file written reasons justifying its upward departure sentences. However, it is undisputed that the trial court did explain on the record at the sentencing hearing why it was imposing the departure sentences. Although appellant’s counsel objected to the reasons announced by the trial court during the sentencing hearing, appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of those reasons on appeal. Appellant did not object in the trial court to the failure timely to file written reasons. Because the issue raised was never presented to the trial court, it was not preserved. In addition, appellant has failed to demonstrate how he has been prejudiced by the failure timely to file written reasons. To the extent that error occurred, it is not “fundamental.” Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we affirm. § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Butler v. State, 723 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 735 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1999).
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…tatutory Maximum and Deviation From Oral Pronouncement of of Probation_ Wright v. State, 720 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 732 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1999) (Case No. 94,541) Costs Error JURISDICTIONAL VOTE PENDING_ Edmondson v. State, 745 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (Case No.1999-101) Departure Sentence . We have jurisdiction over the district court’s decision in Maddox on the basis of direct and express conflict. See art. V, § (3)(b)3, Fla. Const. . Different provisions of the Florida Co…
-
Edmondson v. State, 771 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Edmondson v. State, 745 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), a decision of the First District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its opinion in Butler v. State, 723 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quashed, 761 So. 2d 319 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)…
-
Edmondson v. State, 777 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…WEBSTER, J. In Edmondson v. State, 771 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.2000), the supreme court quashed our prior decision in this case, Edmondson v. State, 745 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and remanded for further proceedings in light of Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). The pertinent facts of this case are indistinguishable from those in Butler v. State, 765 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, a…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Eli Butler, Jr. v. State, 723 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)