DANTE AUSTIN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in controlling comments during closing argument, and any claims regarding insufficient evidence of public defender fees or lack of notice of hearing rights constitute invited error more appropriately addressed through a rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A trial court's control of comments during closing argument is discretionary, and an appellate court will not interfere absent an abuse of discretion.
[2] Claims of insufficient evidence regarding public defender fees under section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, or lack of notice of the right to a hearing under Florida Rul…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The control of comments during closing argument is within the trial court's discretion and an appellate court will not interfere unless an abuse of discretion is shown.”
Citation to Linic v. State, 80 So. 3d 382, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
Dante Austin appealed a conviction from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County. The appeal involved challenges to th…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
DANTE AUSTIN, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2023-1424
[February 19, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 20- 011148CF10A.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. Solages-Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Linic v. State, 80 So. 3d 382, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The control of comments during closing argument is within the trial court’s discretion and an appellate court will not interfere unless an abuse of discretion is shown.”); Rivera v. State, 336 So. 3d 738, 740–41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“Any claim of insufficient evidence [with respect to a public defender fee] under section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2020), or lack of notice of the right to a hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) was invited error more appropriately addressed in a rule 3.850 motion.”).
GERBER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.