Wattiez v. State, 4D21-1146

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 338 So.3d 910
• Parties: Eliza WATTIEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Docket Number: 4D21-1146
• Decision Date: 04 May 2022

338 So.3d 910

Eliza WATTIEZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D21-1146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 4, 2022]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Eliza Wattiez appeals the trial court's conviction and sentence for driving while under the influence of alcohol or chemical substances. This was her third offense within ten years. She raises three issues on appeal, but we write only to address one: whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's request to speak at sentencing. On this issue, we find no error and affirm.

Appellant was found guilty of felony DUI following a jury trial. Both sides presented

338 So.3d 911

their arguments at the sentencing hearing, although appellant did not request the right to allocute at any time during her counsel's presentation. After both sides finished presenting their arguments, the trial judge began to orally pronounce his sentence. While the judge was speaking, appellant herself then asked for permission to address the court. The judge denied her request and continued with appellant's sentencing.

"We have de novo review of a trial court's compliance with the guarantees of due process." Hill v. State , 246 So. 3d 392, 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting Flegal v. Guardianship of Swistock , 169 So. 3d 278, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ).

At the outset, we note that appellant did not make a contemporaneous objection to the trial court's rejection of her request to allocute before pronouncing the sentence. In cases where a defendant raised no objection below, we limit our review to those errors that are "basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process." Jackson v. State , 983 So. 2d 562, 575 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Hopkins v. State , 632 So. 2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1994) ). However, if a defendant, or their counsel, makes it clear that they...