SALIM KAMAU LATIIF, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Salim Kamau Latiif appealed his sentences for drug possession convictions, arguing the trial court erred in calculating his prior record score on the sentencing guideline scoresheet. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the sentences because Latiif failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by abandoning his objection at sentencing.
The defendant did not preserve the issue for appellate review. Although defense counsel raised the scoring issue, it was abandoned before the trial court had an opportunity to rule upon it, and therefore the claim of error cannot be raised on direct appeal.
[1] A defendant who pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal a sentence fails to preserve sentencing issues for appellate review if the issues are not ra…
[2] An issue is preserved for appellate review when it has been presented to and ruled upon by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An issue is preserved for appellate review when "the issue has been presented to, and ruled on by the trial court."”
Establishes the standard for preserving issues for appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLatiif pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel raise…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Salim Kamau Latiif (defendant) appeals his .sentences which were imposed by the trial court after he pled guilty to the charges of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia.1 The defendant argues the trial court erred in calculating his prior record score in completing his sentencing guideline scoresheet. We affirm because this issue was not preserved for appellate review.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel advised the trial court that the defendant claimed that his prior record, which included convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer and criminal mischief, was erroneously scored on the guideline scoresheet. However, after bringing the matter to the court’s attention, defense counsel abandoned his objection stating that “[i]f either of those offenses ... were deleted, the points, I think, would only be 2.6 points. I don’t know if it would have any significant effect on the ultimate sentence.”
Subsections 924.051(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), and amended Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) provide that a defendant who pleads guilty without expressly reserving his or her right to appeal the sentence either by raising the issue at the sentencing hearing, or by filing a motion to correct sentence within thirty days after the rendition of the sentence has failed to preserve the issue for purposes of appeal. See Saldana v. State, 698 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 6th DCA 1997). An issue is preserved for appellate review when “the issue has been presented to, and ruled on by the trial court.” Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Here, although the defense counsel refuted the calculations contained in the defendant’s guideline scoresheet, the scoring issue was abandoned before the trial court had an opportunity to rule upon it. As a result, this claim of error cannot be raised on direct appeal. See also Rodriguez v. State, 650 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 699 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1997).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . §§ 893.13(l)(a)l; 893.147(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…and Jerry. C. Impact on Length of Incarceration We have pending for our review the district courts’ decisions in Seccia v. State, 720 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 727 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1999) (Case No. 94,138), and Latiif v. State, 711 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), review granted, 725 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.1998) (Case No. 93,385), in which the defendants claim that the trial court erred in sentencing them pursuant to an erroneous sentencing scoresheet. We have previously required that defendan…1 / 2
-
Salim Kamau Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2001)…[*835] PARIENTE, J. We have for review the decision in Latiif v. State, 711 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), for which the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited as controlling authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisd…
-
J.R.V. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…he did not raise the issue at the hearing. Not once during her closing argument did defense counsel mention the issue. Because the trial court was not apprised of the argument below, the issue is precluded from appellate review. See Latiif v. State, 711 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1996 Supp.). See also Hart v. State, 710 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Second, appellant, then represented by counsel, did not move to withdraw his plea because he was denied his right to assistanc…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Reynaldo Rodriguez, Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Saldana v. State, 698 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)