DANIEL LAMAR WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Where it is unclear whether the trial court applied the correct standard in denying a motion for new trial, any potential error does not reach the level of fundamental error requiring reversal.
[1] An unclear or ambiguous trial court application of the legal standard for granting or denying a motion for new trial does not constitute fundamental error warranting reve…
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 intelligence“the potential that the trial court erred does not reach the level of fundamental error”
The court's rationale for affirming, citing Kline v. State
Daniel Lamar Williams appealed a trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial. The record did not clearly establish which legal standard the tri…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
August 1, 2019 PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Kline v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1471a (Fla. 1st DCA June 7, 2019) (holding that where it is unclear whether the trial court used the correct standard to deny a motion for new trial, “the potential that the trial court erred does not reach the level of fundamental error”).
RAY, C.J., and ROWE, J., concur; OSTERHAUS, J., dissents with opinion.
2
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.