green
Positive treatment
8.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maddox v. State
See Montague, 682 So.2d at 1085 ; Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maddox v. State
See Montague, 682 So.2d at 1085 ; Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532, 534 (Fla.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Montague
Montague contends that the opposite is true; however, if he is correct, we never would have addressed the sufficiency of defense counsel's objection in Pinacle in the first place. [4] We have repeatedly held that absent an illegal sentence or an unauthorized departure from the sentencing guidelines, [5] only sentencing errors " apparent on the face of the record do not require a contemporaneous objection in order to be preserved for review." Taylor v. State, 601 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1992) (emphasis added); see also Merchant v. State, 509 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1987) (holding that trial court's erroneo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wright v. State
As the supreme court said in State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045, 1046 (Fla.1986) and repeated in Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532, 534 (Fla.1986): Sentencing errors which do not produce an illegal sentence still require a contemporaneous objection if they are to be preserved for appeal.
discussed
Cited "see"
Baldwin v. State
See Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 , 534 (Fla.1986) ("In Whitfield it was apparent from the record that points had been scored for victim injury when Whitfield had been convicted of aggravated assault, a crime not involving victim injury.").
discussed
Cited "see"
Bruijn v. State
See Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 566 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (fn. 2) aff'd 581 So.2d 144 (Fla.1991); Forehand v. State, 524 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) aff'd 537 So.2d 103 (Fla.1989); Stewart v. State, 511 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Lomont v. State, 506 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Peterson v. State
See Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1986); Gibbons, 540 So.2d at 145 .
discussed
Cited "see"
The Florida Bar v. Rightmyer
See The Florida Bar v. Rightmyer, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1986) (public reprimand for neglect and misrepresentation in a medical malpractice case).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ashley v. State
See Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla.1986) (where sentencing court fails to make affirmative findings required by law, error may be raised on appeal without contemporaneous objection, but sentencing issues which involve factual questions require a contemporaneous objection to be preserved); State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Pfeiffer v. State
See Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1986); Lomont v. State, 506 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Senior v. State, 502 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Fink
See Daily v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla.1986); Forehand v. State, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. State
See also, Dailey v. State, 488 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1986) (points improperly added to the guidelines scoresheet because defendant was not under legal constraint when original *778 offense occurred and because there was no supporting evidence for the scoring of victim injury involved factual matters not determinable from the record on appeal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roosevelt DAILEY, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
67381.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 22, 1986.
McDonald.
Cited by 31 opinions | Published
[*533] Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Attorney General and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
McDONALD, Justice.
We accepted jurisdiction to answer the following question of great public interest:
DOES THE CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION RULE APPLY TO PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW OF AN ALLEGED SENTENCING ERROR UNDER THE GUIDELINES WHERE THE ERROR CLAIMED INVOLVES FACTUAL MATTERS THAT ARE NOT APPARENT OR DETERMINABLE FROM THE RECORD ON APPEAL?
Dailey v. State, 471 So.2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We answer the question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court on this issue. As stated by the district court:
Dailey contends that points were improperly added to the guidelines form because he was not under legal constraint at the time of the original offense and because there was no supporting evidence for the victim injury scoring. The proposed guidelines form was before the trial court at the time of sentencing as required by Rule 3.701(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Dailey raised no contemporaneous objection as to those points which he now appeals. The facts here are unlike those in State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 1984), Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1985), and State v. Snow, 462 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1985), in which the Supreme Court held that a defendant may raise sentencing errors on appeal even though not preserved by contemporaneous objection. The issues asserted in Rhoden, Walker, and Snow, supra, relate to errors that were apparent and determinable from the record before the appellate court because all three cases involved the mandatory duty of the trial court to make affirmative findings on the record, which findings were not made.
In the instant case, however, the errors sought to be asserted on appeal (1) were not objected to below, and (2) are not determinable from the record before us. There was no failure of the court to make affirmative findings required by law. It is incumbent upon defense counsel to raise, at the trial level, any objections to underlying factual matters supporting the factors on the scoresheet. Here, counsel did not object to either of the issues now asserted, there is no ruling by the trial court, and there is no record supporting either the pro or con of appellant's contentions on appeal. Sentencing errors may be reviewed on appeal, even in the absence of a contemporaneous objection, if the errors are apparent from the four corners of the record. Thus, errors such as those in Rhoden, supra, Walker, supra, and Snow, supra, involving the trial court's[*534] failure to make an affirmative finding required by the mandate of a statute, appear on the face of the record and are subject to appellate review. The errors asserted here require an evidentiary determination and may not be initially raised in this court.
Id. at 1350-51 (footnotes omitted).
We contrast this opinion with our opinion in State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1986). In Whitfield it was apparent from the record that points had been scored for victim injury when Whitfield had been convicted of aggravated assault, a crime not involving victim injury. Dailey, on the other hand, was convicted of aggravated battery, a crime that denotes some injury. In Whitfield we stated: "Sentencing errors which do not produce an illegal sentence still require a contemporaneous objection if they are to be preserved for appeal." Id., at 1046.
This record does not disclose that Dailey's sentence was illegal and, under his circumstances, Dailey's failure to contest the correctness of his scoresheet at the trial level precludes appellate review thereof. We therefore answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the district court's opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.