CARLOS ECHEVARRIA, 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.
Carlos Echevarria appeals his conviction for grand theft auto, challenging the prosecutor's closing argument and a sentencing condition requiring participation in Orange County's Collections Court Program. The court affirmed the conviction but struck the Collections Court Program requirement as an improper sentencing condition.
The prosecutor's comments were not improper and did not constitute fundamental error. The sentencing requirement to comply with the Collections Court Program is improper and should be struck from the sentence.
[1] A defendant waives appellate review of alleged improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error, meaning the preju…
[2] Prosecutorial comments that highlight irreconcilable witness testimonies and instruct the jury to determine credibility do not constitute fundamental error.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Fundamental error in closing argument occurs only when the prejudicial conduct is so extensive that its influence pervaded the trial, gravely impairing a calm and dispassionate consideration of the evidence and the merits by the jury.”
Establishes the high standard for fundamental error in closing argument when there is no objection at trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEchevarria was convicted by jury of grand theft auto. The prosecutor made statements during closing argument highlighting conflicting testimony betwee…
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 Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Carlos Echevarria appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the offense of grand theft auto.1 We affirm.
Echevarria first challenges his conviction, arguing that he is entitled to receive a new trial because the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument. Specifically, he claims that the prosecutor’s statements improperly vouched for the credibility of the State’s witness. Since the record reveals that the alleged improper comments were not objected to at trial, Echevarria has waived his right to appellate review of this issue unless we conclude the comments were both improper and so prejudicial as to constitute fundamental error. See Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Fundamental error in closing argument occurs only when the prejudicial conduct is so extensive that its influence pervaded the trial, gravely impairing a calm and dispassionate consideration of the evidence and the merits by the jury. Id. Here, the prosecutor’s comments merely highlighted the fact that the witness’s testimony and the testimony submitted by Echevarria were irreconcilable and thus it would be up to the jury to resolve the conflict based upon their determination of the witnesses’ credibility. Since the comments of the prosecutor were not improper, we reject Echevarria’s claim of reversible error. Echevarria also contends that the portion of his sentence which requires him to comply with Orange County’s Collections Court Program created by Ninth Judicial Circuit Administrative Order No. 07-99-26 should be stricken as improper.
We agree. In Blackiston v. State, 772 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court struck down Administrative Order No. 07-99-26 as invalid, holding that the order improperly limited the discretionary authority vested in trial courts to utilize the program only when they deemed it appropriate.
We affirm Echevarria’s judgment and sentence but strike the portion of the sentence which directs him to comply with the Orange County Collections Court Program. Judgment and Sentence AFFIRMED as modified.
PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . § 812.014(2)(c)6., Fla. Stat. (1997).
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)…ts will not review alleged inappropriate comments made by counsel during closing argument unless the comments constitute fundamental error.2 Morton v. State, 789 So. 2d 324 (Fla.2001); Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla.2000); Echevarria v. State, 783 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)); see also Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996); Wyatt v. State, 641 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1994). The Florida Supreme Court has defined fundamental error in c…
-
Rivera v. State, 840 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…use that witness’s testimony was not the only evidence of the defendant's guilt. That is not the case here, where the victim's testimony was the only evidence against the defendant and the offending argument was objected to. Cf. Echevarria v. State, 783 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(holding that it is not error for the state to highlight that the victim's testimony and the defendant's testimony are irreconcilable). . See Wright & Ford Millworks, Inc, v. Long, 412 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Walt Disney…
-
Redwin Anderson Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…. Since there were no contemporaneous objections to the prosecutor’s remarks, this point is not preserved for appeal unless the prosecutor’s comments constituted “fundamental error.” McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1999); Echevarria v. State, 783 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 682 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Here, on the whole, the comments made during closing were fair comments on the evidence and direct responses to defense arguments, and did not amount to “fundamental error” w…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blackiston v. State, 772 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)