EDWARD LEE BRADFORD, 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.
Court affirmed Bradford's second-degree manslaughter conviction and rejected his challenge to court costs imposed without statutory specification because he failed to preserve the issue for appeal.
A defendant who fails to object to court costs at sentencing or file a timely motion for correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) has not preserved the issue for appellate review.
[1] A defendant fails to preserve for appellate review a challenge to court costs by failing to object at sentencing and failing to file a motion for correction under Florida…
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 intelligenceEdward Lee Bradford was convicted of second-degree manslaughter and sentenced to pay $28.00 in court costs without the trial court specifying statutor…
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 Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Lee Bradford appeals his judgment and sentence for second-degree manslaughter. Bradford argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred in imposing court costs without specifying the statutory authority for the costs. Bradford’s first assertion is without merit, and we affirm his conviction without further discussion. As to his second assertion, we affirm because Bradford failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.
Bradford did not object to the $28.00 court cost during his sentencing hearing, nor did he file a motion for correction pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) within thirty days after rendition of his sentence. Thus, Bradford has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(en banc); Gaines v. State, 724 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Moreover, we do not consider the failure of the trial court to delineate the statutory authority for the $28.00 court cost to be a fundamental error. See Bain, 730 So. 2d at 305 (stating that “only in an extreme case would an improper cost assessment ... qualify as fundamental error”).
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Tucker v. State, 724 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Gaines v. State, 724 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)