JONES
v.
STATE
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.
Willie Jones appealed his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing that the trial court's comments shifted the burden of proof and prejudiced his defense. The court affirmed Jones' convictions and sentence, finding no fundamental error in the trial court's comments and determining that a sentencing discrepancy was not properly preserved for appeal.
The court affirmed Jones' convictions and sentence. The trial court's comments did not constitute fundamental error, as not every act or comment demonstrating less than neutrality by the judge rises to the level of fundamental error. The sentencing discrepancy was not properly preserved for direct appeal but may be raised in an appropriately filed Rule 3.800 motion.
[1] Unobjected-to trial court comments constitute fundamental error only if they reach down into the validity of the trial itself such that a guilty verdict could not have be…
[2] A discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order is not properly preserved for direct appeal absent a contemporaneous objection a…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“error that 'reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.'”
Definition of fundamental error applied in evaluating trial court comments on burden of proof
Willie Jones was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. During trial,…
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 Discrepancy Between Oral And Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDON, J.
Willie Jones appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence on the charges of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jones argues on appeal that certain of the trial court’s comments shifted the burden of proof and prejudiced his defense at trial. None of these comments were objected to at trial. Thus, we will reverse only if the comment was fundamental error, i.e., “error that ‘reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’” Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879, 899 (Fla. 2000); see also Jones v. State, 612 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1992) (holding that the contemporaneous objection rule applies to such comments and an appellate court will not reverse in the absence of an objection unless the comment is so prejudicial as to be fundamental error); Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1986) (concluding that errors other than those constituting fundamental error are waived unless timely raised in the trial court).
After a thorough examination of the record on appeal, we find no fundamental error in the trial court’s comments. Indeed, not every act or comment that might be interpreted as demonstrating less than neutrality on the part of the judge will be deemed fundamental error. Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ convictions.
Finally, Jones asserts that there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order. This error was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection during the sentencing hearing or by raising the issue under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), which precludes Jones from raising the error on direct appeal. See Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452, 456 (Fla. 2003); Green v. State, 224 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
As we find that Jones has neither properly preserved the trial court's alleged sentencing error, nor demonstrated fundamental error on appeal, we affirm his sentence without prejudice to Jones to raise this issue in an appropriately filed rule 3.800 motion with the trial court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. Louie L. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1986)
- Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2000)
- Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2003)
- Jones v. State, 612 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1992)
- Hank Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Orenthal Green v. State, 224 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)