requirements of fundamental error in Florida

2025Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error-i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process.”) (quoting F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 230-31 (Fla. 2003)).

2024See Godbolt v. State, 319 So. 3d 773 , 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“Because the victim did not totally repudiate her pretrial statements— which the trial court determined carried the requisite safeguards of reliability for admission as substantive evidence—we cannot say that the evidence was insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all.”); see also F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 , 230-31 (Fla. 2003) (explaining that “an argument that the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime need not be preserved” because “[s]uch complete failure of th

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when "the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error"); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law." (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowin

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when “the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime ... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error”); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law.” (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowi

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when "the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error"); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law." (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowin

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when “the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime ... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error”); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law.” (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowi

2017Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error-i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process. 852 So.2d at 230-31 ; accord Monroe, 191 So.3d at 401 (stating that an unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed “when there is insufficient evidence that a defendant committed any crime”) (emphasis in original); see, e.g., Troedel v. State, 462 So.2d 392, 399 (Fla. 1984) (finding that “a conviction imposed upon a crime totally unsupported by evidence constitutes fundamental error”); S

2005See, e.g., Stanton v. State, 746 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citing Troedel and stating that “a person who takes temporary possession of contraband for the sole purpose of turn ing it into the authorities, and promptly does so, is [not] guilty of a crime”); Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing conviction because a “conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law”); Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (reversing conviction and stating

2005See, e.g., Stanton v. State, 746 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citing Troedel and stating that “a person who takes temporary possession of contraband for the sole purpose of turn ing it into the authorities, and promptly does so, is [not] guilty of a crime”); Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing conviction because a “conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law”); Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (reversing conviction and stating

2003See, e.g., Stanton v. State, 746 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citing Troedel and stating that “a person who takes temporary possession of contraband for the sole purpose of turning it into the authorities, and promptly does so, is [not] guilty of a crime”); Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing conviction because a “conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law”); Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (reversing conviction and stating

2011Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error—i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process." F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , *669 230-31 (Fla.2003); see also A.P.R., 894 So.2d at 286 .

2011Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error — i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process.” F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230-31 (Fla.2003); see also A.P.R., 894 So.2d at 286 .

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when "the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error"); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law." (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowin

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when “the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime ... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error”); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law.” (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowi

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when "the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error"); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law." (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowin

2011See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 , 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that when “the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime ... [s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error”); Cox v. State, 1 So.3d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A conviction is fundamentally erroneous when the facts affirmatively proven by the State simply do not constitute the charged offense as a matter of law.” (quoting Griffin v. State, 705 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))); Santiago v. State, 847 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (allowi

2005See, e.g., Dydek v. State, 400 So.2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that the defendant's conduct did not constitute a crime and noting, "[w]e can think of no error more fundamental than the conviction of a defendant in the absence of a prima facie showing of the essential elements of the crime charged"); Waugh v. State, 388 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing a conviction where the factual basis for the guilty plea did not establish the crime); see also F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230-31 (Fla.2003) (holding that an argument that evidence "is totally insufficient as a matter

2005See, e.g., Dydek v. State, 400 So.2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that the defendant’s conduct did not constitute a crime and noting, “[w]e can think of no error more fundamental than the conviction of a defendant in the absence of a prima facie showing of the essential elements of the crime charged”); Waugh v. State, 388 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing a conviction where the factual basis for the guilty plea did not establish the crime); see also F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230-31 (Fla.2003) (holding that an argument that evidence “is totally insufficient as a matter

2005See, e.g., Dydek v. State, 400 So.2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that the defendant's conduct did not constitute a crime and noting, "[w]e can think of no error more fundamental than the conviction of a defendant in the absence of a prima facie showing of the essential elements of the crime charged"); Waugh v. State, 388 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing a conviction where the factual basis for the guilty plea did not establish the crime); see also F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230-31 (Fla.2003) (holding that an argument that evidence "is totally insufficient as a matter

2005See, e.g., Dydek v. State, 400 So.2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that the defendant’s conduct did not constitute a crime and noting, “[w]e can think of no error more fundamental than the conviction of a defendant in the absence of a prima facie showing of the essential elements of the crime charged”); Waugh v. State, 388 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing a conviction where the factual basis for the guilty plea did not establish the crime); see also F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230-31 (Fla.2003) (holding that an argument that evidence “is totally insufficient as a matter

2025We said that “[s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error—i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process.” Id. at 230-31 .

2025We said that “[s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error—i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process.” Id. at 230-31.

2025For an error 2 to be fundamental, it “must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Id. at 229 (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)).

2025Snyder v. State, 921 So. 2d 871, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sinkfield v. State, 592 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

2025Snyder v. State, 921 So. 2d 871, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sinkfield v. State, 592 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

2017Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error-i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process. 852 So.2d at 230-31 ; accord Monroe, 191 So.3d at 401 (stating that an unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed “when there is insufficient evidence that a defendant committed any crime”) (emphasis in original); see, e.g., Troedel v. State, 462 So.2d 392, 399 (Fla. 1984) (finding that “a conviction imposed upon a crime totally unsupported by evidence constitutes fundamental error”); S

2017Appellant’s alleged co-conspirators were Shaun Graham and other “known or unknown” persons. “[A] defendant charged with conspiracy may be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown; however, the evidence must show that an unnamed cocon-spirator did exist and that the defendant conspired with him,” O’Connor, 590 So.2d at 1020 (citing State v. Rodriguez-Jimenez, 439 So.2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (additional citations omitted)).

2017See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230 (Fla. 2003) (stating that “argument that the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime need not be preserved” for appellate review because “[s]uch complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error”); O’Connor v. State, 590 So.2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (reversing conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine because, although not argued to the trial court, the complete failure of proof to support the conspiracy charge constitutes fundamental error (citations omitted)).

2017Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error-i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process. 852 So.2d at 230-31 ; accord Monroe, 191 So.3d at 401 (stating that an unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed “when there is insufficient evidence that a defendant committed any crime”) (emphasis in original); see, e.g., Troedel v. State, 462 So.2d 392, 399 (Fla. 1984) (finding that “a conviction imposed upon a crime totally unsupported by evidence constitutes fundamental error”); S

2010Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error — i.e., an error that reaches to the foundation of the case and is equal to a denial of due process.”); Smith v. Crosby, 872 So.2d 279, 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Where such fundamental error occurs, an appellate court will forgive the failure of preservation and review the legal sufficiency of the conviction on appeal.”).

2007"Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error. . . ."); see also Kirschner v. State, 915 So.2d 624, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); M.C.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hornsby v. State, 680 So.2d 598, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

2007"Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error. . . ."); see also Kirschner v. State, 915 So.2d 624, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); M.C.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hornsby v. State, 680 So.2d 598, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

2007"Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error. . . ."); see also Kirschner v. State, 915 So.2d 624, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); M.C.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hornsby v. State, 680 So.2d 598, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).