Dailey v. State
| Decision Date | 22 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67381,67381 |
| Citation | 488 So.2d 532,11 Fla. L. Weekly 228 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 228 Roosevelt DAILEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Attorney General and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We accepted jurisdiction to answer the following question of great public interest:
DOES THE CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION RULE APPLY TO PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW OF AN ALLEGED SENTENCING ERROR UNDER THE GUIDELINES WHERE THE ERROR CLAIMED INVOLVES FACTUAL MATTERS THAT ARE NOT APPARENT OR DETERMINABLE FROM THE RECORD ON APPEAL?
Dailey v. State, 471 So.2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We answer the question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court on this issue. As stated by the district court:
Dailey contends that points were improperly added to the guidelines form because he was not under legal constraint at the time of the original offense and because there was no supporting evidence for the victim injury scoring. The proposed guidelines form was before the trial court at the time of sentencing as required by Rule 3.701(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Dailey raised no contemporaneous objection as to those points which he now appeals. The facts here are unlike those in State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984), Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452 (Fla.1985), and State v. Snow, 462 So.2d 455 (Fla.1985), in which the Supreme Court held that a defendant may raise sentencing errors on appeal even though not preserved by contemporaneous objection. The issues asserted in Rhoden, Walker, and Snow, supra, relate to errors that were apparent and determinable from the record before the appellate court because all three cases involved the mandatory duty of the trial court to make affirmative findings on the record, which findings were not made.
In the instant case, however, the errors sought to be asserted on appeal (1) were not objected to below, and (2) are not determinable from the record before us. There was no failure of the court to make affirmative findings required by law. It is incumbent upon defense counsel to raise, at the trial level, any objections to underlying factual matters supporting the factors on the scoresheet. Here, counsel did not object to either of the issues now asserted, there is no ruling by the trial court, and there is no record supporting either the pro or con of appellant's contentions on appeal. Sentencing errors may be reviewed on appeal, even in the absence of a contemporaneous objection, if the errors are apparent from the four corners of the record. Thus, errors such as those in Rhoden, supra, Walker, supra, and Snow, supra, involving the trial court's failure to make an affirmative finding required by the mandate of a statute,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maddox v. State
...errors in the scoresheet if the error is based upon disputed factual matters. See Montague, 682 So.2d at 1085; Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1986). Even in those cases involving scoresheet errors apparent from the record, we have previously held that "it does not necessarily fol......
-
Tasker v. State
...objection, however, sentencing errors must be apparent on the face of the record to be cognizable on appeal." (citing Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla.1986); State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986))).Yet Tasker failed to object here, and no error is apparent on the face of the reco......
-
Mitchell v. State, 4-86-3023
...from the sentencing guidelines require a contemporaneous objection if they are to be preserved for appeal. Id. at 1046. In Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla.1986), the court held that the contemporaneous objection rule applies to preclude appellate review of an alleged sentencing error un......
-
Kio v. State, 91-2744
... ... In light of the mandatory requirement of section 921.161(1), the error of failure to give appropriate credit for jail time served may be raised on direct appeal, even in the absence of an objection in the lower tribunal. Dailey v. State, 471 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), approved on other grounds, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla.1986); Van Ellis v. State, 455 So.2d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 459 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1984). Accord Burton v. State, 473 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Yohn v. State, 461 So.2d ... ...