KITRAN HENDRIX, 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 held that the defendant waived his claim of improper prosecutorial comment by failing to object at trial.
The defendant was convicted of possession of contraband. During closing argument, the prosecutor allegedly made an improper comment regarding the defe…
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 Waiver Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Entran Hendrix challenges his conviction for possession of contraband in a county detention facility, alleging that the State made an improper comment during closing argument. Because we find that Hendrix failed to object to the allegedly improper comment at trial, we affirm.
Hendrix asserts that the prosecutor made statements during closing argument that amounted to improper comment on Hendrix’s right to remain silent. “Ordinarily, to preserve a claim based on improper comment, counsel has the obligation to object and request a mistrial. If counsel fails to object or if, after having objected, fails to move for a mistrial, his silence will be considered an implied waiver.” Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336, 1340 (Fla.1990). In this case, counsel for Hendrix did not object to the allegedly improper comment and did not move for a mistrial at any time during the proceedings. Therefore, Hendrix waived any objection to the allegedly improper comment.
It is true that error which is fundamental may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Mordenti v. State, 630 So. 2d 1080, 1084 (Fla.1994). However, we conclude based on the record in this case that the allegedly improper comment did not rise to the level of fundamental error. See D’Ambrosio v. State, 736 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Bell v. State, 723 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lenon Lee McARTHUR, Jr. v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…nted at trial provides additional grounds for finding defendant guilty. 743 So. 2d at 4. . The defendant must also move for a mistrial in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. Rose v. State, 787 So. 2d 786 (Fla.2001); Hendrix v. State, 767 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The reason, for this procedural rule is to require counsel to promptly act if he or she believes that the error merits an end to the proceedings and a new trial. Rose.…
-
Howard v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…. Howard neither obtained a ruling on his objection to the statements in the opening nor made any objection as the testimony was offered and closing argument was made, this issue is not preserved for our review in this appeal.2 See Hendrix v. State, 767 So. 2d 493, 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the defendant failed to preserve the prosecutor's improper comment on silence by failing to object); see also Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("A 2Mr. Howard has not argued that the…
Authorities Cited
- Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1990)
- Mordenti v. State, 630 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1994)
- D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Demitrius Bell v. State, 723 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)