RICHARD LEE SUNDELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Richard Lee Sundell appealed his robbery conviction and 25-year sentence, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed because Sundell failed to raise the sufficiency-of-evidence issue through a motion for judgment of acquittal or motion for new trial at the trial court level, and such procedural preservation is required on appeal in non-capital cases.
The appellate court has no power to entertain a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge on direct appeal in a non-capital case unless the issue was first presented to the trial court by appropriate motion. The only exception is in capital cases where the sentence of death has been imposed, in which the Florida Supreme Court may conduct an independent review regardless of whether the issue was preserved at trial.
[1] A claim of insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction is not reviewable on direct appeal unless first presented to the trial court via a motion for judgment o…
[2] The requirement to preserve the sufficiency of evidence issue for appeal by filing a motion in the trial court applies even when the appellant claims ineffective assistan…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“unless the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case is first presented to the trial court by way of a motion for judgment of acquittal or motion for new trial, the issue is not reviewable on direct appeal from an adverse judgment”
Establishes the fundamental procedural requirement for preserving sufficiency-of-evidence challenges on appeal in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSundell was convicted of robbery in a non-jury bench trial before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and sentenced to twen…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence Review cases and more on FLexlaw
[*410] HUBBART, Judge.
The defendant Richard Lee Sundell appeals from a judgment of conviction for robbery and a twenty-five year sentence entered thereon after a finding of guilt in a non-jury trial before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The defendant contends on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support the robbery conviction herein and that the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Our review of the record reveals that the defendant made no motion for a judgment of acquittal and no post-trial motion for a new trial in the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm.
The law of this state is well-settled that unless the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case is first presented to the trial court by way of a motion for judgment of acquittal or motion for new trial, the issue is not reviewable on direct appeal from an adverse judgment. The same rule obtains notwithstanding a claim on appeal, as is true in this case, that trial counsel was inadequate or incompetent in failing to make the appropriate trial or post-trial motions. There is only one exception to this rule: the Supreme Court of Florida in a capital case in which the death sentence has been imposed is empowered to make an independent review of record to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict regardless of whether the issue was presented to the trial court by proper motion. Tibbs v. State, 337 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1976); State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1973); § 921.141(4), Florida Statutes (1975).
Measured by these established standards, it is clear that this court has no power to entertain the defendant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict because it was never presented to the trial court by appropriate motion. We are without authority to entertain the issue for the first time on appeal in this non-capital case.
The defendant’s reliance on Tibbs v. State, 337 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1976), and Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502 (1913) is misplaced. In both cases, the defendant was convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death. As such, appropriate motions in the trial court attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict were not required in order to raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Nor is Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565 (1915), in point because there the defendant made an appropriate motion for new trial which was denied by the trial court, thus preserving the sufficiency question for appeal. And implicit in the decisions of McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 So. 791 (1932); Clark v. State, 98 Fla. 874, 124 So. 446 (1929); Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528 (1926); Ross v. State, 190 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), is that appropriate motions were made at the trial level preserving the sufficiency question for appeal.
We are not unmindful of the admonition that rules of procedure essential to administer justice should never be permitted to become so technical, fossilized and antiquated that they obscure the justice of the cause and lead to results that bring its administration into disrepute. In re Estate of Gottschalk, 143 Fla. 371, 196 So. 844 (1940). When one is faced with a sentence to the penitentiary for a crime he did not commit, his conviction being due solely to mistaken identity, the law should not quibble over trifles in providing a formula to correct the injustice. Ex Parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708, 711 (Fla.1951). If in fact the defendant has any recognized ground for post-conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, that avenue is still open to him. See: Ex Parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1951); State v. Pitts, 241 So. 2d 399, 413-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), vacated 247 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1971), on remand 249 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Grant v. State, 166 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1986)…of procedure essential to administer justice should never be permitted to become so technical, fossilized and antiquated that they obscure the justice of the cause and lead to results that bring its administration into disrepute.” Sundell v. State, 354 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). We therefore hold that the limited jurisdiction conferred on the courts by rule 1.540(b) to correct errors includes the power to correct clerical substantive errors in a voluntary notice of dismissal. Further, we agree wit…
-
Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…not expressly stated, we find that the underlying rationale suggested by the foregoing principles and cases3 is that the rules of procedure must not be permitted to become so technical that “they obscure the justice of the cause.” Sundell v. State, 354 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Rather, the rules should be construed in such a manner as to “further justice, not to frustrate it.” Singletary v. [*775] State, 322 So. 2d 551, 555 (Fla.1975). Only by applying what we perceive to be the preferred construct…
-
Dunbar v. State, 731 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…nce presented at trial, but defense counsel failed to make any motions for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. Therefore, Dunbar has waived review of this issue. See Stanley v. State, 626 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Sundell v. State, 354 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Dunbar also claims that the identification procedure used by law enforcement officers was fundamentally flawed. However, because defense counsel failed to object to the witnesses’ testimony regarding this identification, D…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1926)
- Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1915)
- Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973)
- Delbert Tibbs v. State, 337 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1976)
- Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1913)
- In re the Est. of Mary Ellen Gottschalk v. Adeline K. Gottschalk, 143 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1940)
- Ex parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1951)
- Odie McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1932)
- Yoder v. Maddox, 104 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1932)