Dunman v. State, 80-981

Citation400 So.2d 838
Decision Date08 July 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-981,80-981
PartiesKevin Jay DUNMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Edward M. Chew, and Barbara A. Butler, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to section 39.04(2)(e)(4), Florida Statutes (1979), Dunman was charged by an information with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft, second degree. At the time of his trial in the "adult" court, Dunman was sixteen years old. The jury convicted him of both offenses and the trial judge immediately adjudicated and sentenced him to consecutive terms of twelve years for the burglary and five years for grand theft. Dunman contends that the trial judge erred because prior to sentencing he did not order a pre-sentence investigation pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710 and he also failed to follow the sentencing procedure mandated by section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (1979).

These points were not raised before the trial court. They concern procedural errors which are not fundamental; therefore, they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Jones v. State, 384 So.2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 392 So.2d 1375 (Fla.1980); Smith v. State, 378 So.2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), approved, 394 So.2d 407 (Fla.1980); cf. Gonzalez v. State, 392 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of appellant are affirmed without prejudice to his right to seek appropriate relief, e. g., by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Smith, supra.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Walcott v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 15, 1984
    ...applied the COR to a sentencing error (imposition of enhanced sentence without prerequisite findings), citing Jones. Dunman v. State, 400 So.2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), applied the COR to sentencing errors (sentencing without a PSI and without prerequisite findings required by § 39.111(6), ......
  • State v. Rhoden
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1984
    ...with Glenn v. State, 411 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Burley v. State, 402 So.2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); and Dunman v. State, 400 So.2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. This cause concerns the trial court's sentencing of the......
  • Monarca v. State, 81-227
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 14, 1982
    ...purposes. See Greene v. State, 403 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Rubasky v. State, 401 So.2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Dunman v. State, 400 So.2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The judgments and sentences are affirmed without prejudice to appellant raising his alleged sentencing error with the t......
  • Rubasky v. State, 80-1291
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 1981
    ...prejudice to appellant's right to seek appropriate relief, e. g., through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Dunman v. State, 400 So.2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Smith v. State, AFFIRMED. COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. 1 Other appellate courts are divided on the issue of applying t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT