ARON ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, ARON ANDERSON, was charged with sale or delivery of a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a place of worship in violation of section 893.1S(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1999). Appellant’s attorney engaged in plea negotiations with the State on his behalf. Pursuant to those negotiations, Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence. .
Appellant now seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the statute though he did not make any such challenge in the trial court or reserve his right to do so as a condition of his plea.
Since Appellant failed to properly raise and preserve the issue for appellate review by first presenting the constitutional challenge to the trial court for determination, he is precluded from raising that issue now on appeal. Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979). Our supreme court has held that district courts should affirm in such cases unless the appeal presents: (1) a legally dispositive issue that was expressly reserved for appellate review pursuant to section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (1999); (2) an issue concerning whether the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as set forth in Robinson; or (3) a preserved sentencing error or a sentencing error that constitutes fundamental error. Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000). None of those circumstances is present here. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. THOMPSON, C.J. and PLEUS, J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caruso v. Baumle, 880 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004)…2d at 280. Although the court agreed that section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (2001), required a defendant to present evidence of PIP benefits at trial, not after trial, the court felt bound by its prior decision in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Scott, 773 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Scott held that a party asserting the defense of PIP setoffs was not required to introduce that evidence during trial. Id. at 1291. On motion for rehearing, clarification, or certification, the Fifth District adhered to its opin…
-
Caruso v. Baumle, 835 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ally, if the defendant neglects to present evidence of the plaintiffs PIP benefits, the jury cannot be faulted for failing to consider those payments in its award. Citing to both sections 627.736(3) and 768.76(1) in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Scott, 773 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), this court stated that a party asserting the defense of PIP benefit setoffs was not required to introduce that evidence during the course of the jury trial. But the court did not address the differences between the two statutes…
-
Garcia v. Arraga, 872 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…defendant is required to present evidence of PIP benefits during trial, pursuant to Section 627.736(3), the court, nevertheless, concluded that it was bound by an earlier decision rendered by that court announced in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Scott, 773 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)2. That decision held that collateral source evidence should be presented after trial pursuant to Section 768.76(1).3 This court finds that both provisions authorize the trial judge to render a post-trial decision regarding colla…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)