SCOTT WHEELER, 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 error regarding the trial court's standard for a suppression hearing by failing to object at trial.
The defendant was convicted of DUI manslaughter. During a pretrial suppression hearing, the trial court stated an incorrect standard for reviewing the…
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 Issues On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We deny Scott Wheeler’s motion for rehearing; however, we withdraw our previous opinion issued on October 21, 2011, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
Scott Wheeler (defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crime of driving under the influence causing death to a human being (DUI manslaughter).1 Determining that no showing of reversible error has been made, we affirm. Howev*6er, we write to address one of the claims of error raised by the defendant.
The defendant argues that the trial court erred in the manner in which it weighed the evidence presented during his pretrial suppression hearing. Specifically, he maintains that, in issuing its verbal ruling, the trial court stated that the standard for reviewing the defendant’s suppression motion was as follows:
The trial court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution unless the testimony is implausible or incredible as a matter of law.
In so ruling, the trial court cited to State v. Johnson, 695 So.2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The defendant contends that, contrary to the trial court’s verbal statement, during suppression hearings trial courts must weigh the evidence based on the totality of the circumstances, without having any favoritism toward the prosecution. To support this claim, he cites to Lewis v. State, 979 So.2d 1197, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We agree that Lewis properly sets forth the standard to be used by trial courts when ruling on a motion to suppress. See also State v. Littles, 68 So.3d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Therefore, we have reviewed this appeal en banc in order to recede from the language in Johnson.
However, we reject the defendant’s claim that the trial court’s error constitutes reversible error because the instant record demonstrates that, as the State aptly notes in its brief, no objection was raised by the defendant during the suppression hearing regarding the trial court’s reliance on the Johnson standard of review. As such, this claim of error has been waived for purposes of appellate review. See Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla.2005) (explaining that, to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must make a timely, specific objection). Furthermore, the defendant did not raise a claim of fundamental error relating to this issue in his initial brief; therefore, this court is not required to undertake a fundamental error analysis. See Fike v. State, 4 So.3d 734, 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (noting that the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate fundamental error); Williams v. State, 845 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that defendant failed to preserve claim of fundamental error where he did not raise issue until he filed reply brief). See also Sampson v. State, 903 So.2d 1055, 1058-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Altenbernd, J., concurring).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, MONACO, TORPY, LAWSON, EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ferguson v. State, 200 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…recourse would have been to argue that the admission of the 'testimony constituted fundamental error. However, Ferguson did not preserve any claim of fundamental error because the issue was only presented in his reply brief. E.g., Wheeler v. State, 87 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (determining that appellate court was not required to undertake fundamental error analysis where defendant did not raise claim of fundamental error in initial appellate brief). We trust this irrelevant and highly prejudicial t…
-
Berben v. State, 268 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
Spaulding v. Spaulding, 326 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…e preserved for appeal. No argument regarding fundamental error has been made.”); Collins v. State, 211 So. 3d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (noting a claim of fundamental error was waived by failing to make the argument on appeal); Wheeler v. State, 87 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (holding that an appellate court is not required to undertake a fundamental error analysis where the issue was not raised in the initial brief); Williams v. State, 845 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that defendan…
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
- Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005)
- Williams v. State, 845 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Lynwood Davis v. State, 4 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- State v. Johnson, 695 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Fike v. State, 4 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Sampson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- State v. Littles, 68 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Lewis v. State, 979 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)