AKEEM MUHAMMAD, APPELLANT,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE

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…