MATTHEW DONALD CAPRE, 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.
Sentencing errors occurring after the effective date of amended rule 3.800(b) are barred if not raised at trial or in post-trial proceedings.
The defendant asserted he received an improper vindictive sentence after electing to go to trial rather than accept a plea offer. He did not raise thi…
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 Timeliness Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Capre asserts he received an improper vindictive sentence1 of 42 months because he elected to go to trial rather than accept the state’s pre-trial offer of a non-state prison sentence of 51 weeks in the county jail. He did not raise this issue below, nor did he avail himself of the remedy by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
Capre’s trial took place in February of 2000, after the effective date of amended rule 3.800(b). See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000); Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) and 3.800 and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.14-0, and 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999). Under Maddox, sentencing errors occurring after the effective date of amended rule 3.800(b), even fundamental ones, are barred if not raised at trial or in post-trial proceedings pursuant to rule 3.800. See Mancha v. State, 768 So. 2d 1178 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . See, e.g., Willard v. State, 717 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ("It goes almost without saying that a judge may not impose a greater sentence on a defendant because such defendant avails himself of his constitutional right to trial”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Harvey v. State, 786 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ellate review, this court, in keeping with the limitations on the impact of the decision in Maddox, will not consider the merits of the single subject challenge raised by appellant for the first time in his amended initial brief. See Capre v. State, 773 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (declining to reach merits of alleged sentencing error where defendant’s trial had taken place after most recent amendments to rule 3.800(b) and defendant had failed to raise the issue in the trial court or in postsenteneing proc…
-
Garrett v. State, 788 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ept of fundamental sentencing error because the procedural mechanism provided by the most recent amendments to the rule would allow for raising any alleged sentencing errors prior to the filing of the first appellate brief. See also Capre v. State, 773 So. 2d 92, 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(“Under Maddox, sentencing errors occurring after the effective date of amended rule 3.800(b), even fundamental ones, are barred if not raised at trial or in post-trial proceedings pursuant to rule 3.800.”). Accordingly, we a…
-
Montville Labadie v. State, 840 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ised this argument to the trial court. In fact, the record is clear that Labadie specifically waived his right to a jury trial and the associated rights and privileges. A sentencing error may not be raised on appeal unless preserved. Capre v. State, 773 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Durr v. State, 773 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Further on this issue, Labadie did not provide a transcript of his plea and sentencing hearing. It is his obligation to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)
- Mancha v. State, 768 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Willard v. State, 717 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Beaufort v. State, 717 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)