fundamental error in Florida

2026Fundamental error reaches “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.” State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 644-45 (Fla. 1991) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)).

2025Fundamental error is error that “‘reach[es] 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.’” Polls v. State, 134 So. 3d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 , 644–45 (Fla. 1991)).

2026Our supreme court has advised appellate courts to "exercise [their] discretion under the doctrine of fundamental error very guardedly." Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970).

2026See also Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970) (“Fundamental error . . . is error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.”); Hamilton v. State, 88 So. 2d 606 , 7 607 (Fla. 1956).

2023"Fundamental error is error that 'reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilt could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.' " Mendoza v. State, 964 So. 2d 121, 131 (Fla. 2007) (quoting Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla. 1996)).

2015“Fundamental error is error that ‘reach[es] 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.’ ” Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187, 1205 (Fla.2006) (quoting Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996)).

2026Fundamental error reaches “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.” State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 644-45 (Fla. 1991) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)).

2025Applying the fundamental error standard, I cannot conclude that “a verdict of guilty [under Count IV] could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2003) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)). * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 10

2025“Fundamental error is defined as the type of error which reaches 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.” Scott v. State, 218 So. 3d 476, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). “[T]he doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in the rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a 3 compelling demand for its application.” Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla. 1981).

2025“Fundamental error is defined as the type of error which reaches 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.” Scott v. State, 218 So. 3d 476, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). “[T]he doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in the rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a 3 compelling demand for its application.” Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla. 1981).

2025"The doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application." Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 521 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1988)).

2025"The doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application." Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 521 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1988)).

2026Fundamental error “reaches 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.” McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999).

2025“Fundamental error is defined as the type of error which reaches 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.” Scott v. State, 218 So. 3d 476, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). “[T]he doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in the rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a 3 compelling demand for its application.” Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla. 1981).

2025See Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879, 898-99 (Fla. 2000) (stating that failure to object to improper comments in closing waives any appellate claim unless the impropriety rises to the level of fundamental error, i.e., error that reaches 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). 1.

2025See Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879, 898-99 (Fla. 2000) (stating that failure to object to improper comments in closing waives any appellate claim unless the impropriety rises to the level of fundamental error, i.e., error that reaches 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). 1.

2025See Sims v. State, 135 So. 3d 1098, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (noting the defendant has the burden on appeal of proving a fundamental error (citing Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366 , 369–70 (Fla. 2002)).

2025See Allen v. State, 261 So. 3d 1255, 1280 (Fla. 2019); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696 ("[A] verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support."); cf. Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369 (explaining that under the fundamental error doctrine, "whether the evidence of guilt is overwhelming . . . [is] not germane to whether the error is fundamental").

2025A fundamental error “must reach down into the validity of the trial itself 10 to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)).

2025Applying the fundamental error standard, I cannot conclude that “a verdict of guilty [under Count IV] could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2003) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)). * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 10

2025Tr. v. Islamorada, Vill. of Islands, 225 So. 3d 312, 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous there is no occasion for judicial interpretation.” (quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla. 1992))).

2024Tr. v. Islamorada, Vill. of Islands, 225 So. 3d 312, 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous there is no occasion for judicial interpretation.” (quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla. 1992))).

2026Although it is a fundamental principle of due process that a defendant may not be convicted of a crime that has not been charged by the state, Jaimes, 51 So. 3d at 448–49, under these unique circumstances no fundamental error or denial of due process occurred.

2025See Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445 , 448–49 (Fla. 2010) ("It is a fundamental principle of due process that a defendant may not be convicted of a crime that has not been charged by the state.

2026“Fundamental error ‘goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to the denial of due process.’” Hayes v. State, 276 So. 3d 950 , 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).

2025"The doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application." Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 521 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1988)).

2026See Douglass v. Buford, 9 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“Sitting as an appellate court, we are precluded from making factual findings ourselves in the first instance.”); Farneth v. State, 945 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A fundamental principle of appellate procedure is that an appellate court is not empowered to make findings of fact.”).

2026Reversed and remanded with instructions. 3 “Failure to provide a full evidentiary hearing on a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge can implicate due process.” See Dorvil v. Atwell, 399 So. 3d 1207 , 1210–11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). 4 But we can go no further into the resolution of this jurisdictional quandary because “as an appellate court we cannot render the initial factual determinations that still need to be made.” Tucker v. Ebadian, 338 So. 3d 384 , 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quotation omitted); Scudder, 228 So. 3d at 707 (citing Farneth v. State, 945 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)) (“A fun

2025In Knight, however, the Florida Supreme Court receded from (i) its “precedent where a finding of fundamental error was predicated on Florida’s jury pardon doctrine,” and (ii) its “precedent applying the fundamental error analysis of Stewart v. State, 420 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1982), outside the context of erroneous jury instructions on the offense of conviction.” Knight, 286 So. 3d at 154.

2019We also reaffirm the fundamental error rule of Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960), and recede from this Court’s precedent applying the fundamental error analysis of Stewart v. State, 420 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1982), outside the context of erroneous jury instructions on the offense of conviction.

2024“Fundamental error is ‘error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.’” Jackson, 983 So. 2d at 568 (quoting Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1994)). [I]t is not fundamental error to convict a defendant under an erroneous lesser included charge when he had an opportunity to object to the charge and failed to do so if: 1) the improperly charged offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the main offense or 2) defense counsel requested the improper charge or relied on that charge as evidence by argument to the jury or other affirmative

2022Order No. AOSC20-23, Amend. 5 (Aug. 12, 2020). 3 Fundamental error is error “so prejudicial to the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial that reversal is required even absent a contemporaneous objection.” Louidor v. State, 162 So. 3d 305, 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “[F]or an error to be so fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal, the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process.” Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1994) (quoting State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1993)). 4 Gonzalez does not otherwi

2015In this petition for habeas corpus, which was filed in 2013, he argues that the trial court committed fundamental error resulting in a manifest injustice when it instructed the jury with standard language that he had no duty to retreat if he was not engaged “in an unlawful activity.” Although we agree with Mr. Giardina that this issue was not resolved in prior proceedings, we do not agree that this instruction on the duty to retreat was erroneous, much less that it resulted in the type of manifest injustice that caused the Fourth District to give relief in Furney v. State, 115 So.3d 1095 (Fla.

2014In Macchione v. State, 123 So.3d 114, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), this court explained: "It is a basic rule of statutory construction that ‘the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.’” Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 463 (Fla.2010) (quoting Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449, 452 (Fla.2008) (oth er citation omitted)); State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002); Unruh v. State, 669 So.2d 242, 245 (Fla. 1996) (“As a fundamental rule of statutory construction, ‘courts should avoid readings that would

2025Fundamental error is error that “reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that [a death sentence] could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 , 212 (Fla. 2020) (quoting Card v. State, 803 So. 2d 613, 622 (Fla. 2001)).

2025Fundamental error is error that reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that the jury’s recommendation of death could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” (citing Card v. State, - 30 - 803 So. 2d 613, 622 (Fla. 2001))).

2022In Smith, we explained that “[c]ourts correct errors as fundamental despite a party’s failure to conform to procedural rules regarding preservation” where necessary “ ‘to protect the interests of justice itself.’ ” Id. (quoting Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 98 (Fla. 2000)); see also Calloway v. State, 210 So. 3d 1160, 1191 (Fla. - 34 - 2017) (“Fundamental error must amount to a denial of due process, and consequently, should be found to apply where prejudice follows.”).

2014Fundamental error is error that reaches 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.” Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 96 (Fla.2000).

2021See Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054, 1061 (Fla. 2007) (“Closing argument is an opportunity for counsel to review the evidence and to explicate those inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. … Unobjected-to comments are grounds for reversal only if they rise to the level of fundamental error.”).

2018Thus, Lowe is entitled to relief only if the "[u]nobjected-to comments ... rise to the level of fundamental error." Merck v. State , 975 So.2d 1054 , 1061 (Fla. 2007).

2025Jackson, then, simply mirrors this distinction, noting the difference between a “sentencing error” and an “error in the sentencing process.” See id. at 578 (distinguishing between “sentencing errors,” which are “errors in orders entered as a result of the sentencing process” and the proper subject of a motion under rule 3.800(b), on the one hand; and “an error in the sentencing process” itself, which is not the proper subject of such a motion, on the other, and allowing for consideration of “unpreserved” 30 sentencing-process errors, “but only under the fundamental error standard”).

2024See Calloway v. State, 210 So. 3d 1160, 1191 (Fla. 2017) (“Fundamental error must amount to a denial of due process, and consequently, should be found to apply where prejudice follows.”); Jackson, 983 So. 2d at 576 (Fla. 2008) (“By its very nature, fundamental error has to be considered harmful.

2022See Spencer v. State, 842 So. 2d 52, 73 (Fla. 2003) (explaining that “an exception” to the rule that “appellate counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise issues not preserved for appeal” exists “where appellate counsel fails to raise a claim which, although not preserved at trial, presents a fundamental error”).

2018See Gonzalez v. State, 136 So. 3d 1125, 1140 (Fla. 2014) (“Fundamental error is error that reaches ‘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.’ ” (quoting Spencer v. State, 842 So. 2d 52, 74 (Fla. 2003))). 3.

2018In Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735, 743 (Fla. 2013), the court held as follows: [G]iving the manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction does not cure the fundamental error in giving the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction where the defendant is convicted of an offense not more than one step removed from manslaughter and the evidence supports a finding of manslaughter by act, but does not reasonably support a finding that the death occurred due to the culpable negligence of the defendant.

2018Therefore, because Marshall was convicted of second degree murder – an offense that is not more than one step removed from the lesser offense of manslaughter – and because there was no evidence from which a jury could have reasonably concluded that the victim died due to Marshall’s culpable negligence, giving the culplable negligence instruction in this case did not “cure the fundamental error in giving the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction.” Haygood II, 109 So. 3d at 743 .

2016See, e.g., Terrinoni v. Westward Ho!, 418 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1st' DCA 1982); Unruh v. State, 669 So.2d 242 (Fla.1996) (as a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation, courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless); Op. Att’y Gen.

2016See Unruh v. State, 669 So.2d 242, 245 (Fla. 1996) (“As a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation, ‘courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.’ ”).

2026Relying on State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010), Baker asserts that appellate counsel failed to argue that the trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury on the lesser-included crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter by act.

2018Moreover, everyone agrees—including the State—that one of the jury instructions given in this case was erroneous and constituted fundamental error under State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252, 259 (Fla. 2010) and Williams v. State, 123 So. 3d 23, 30 (Fla. 2013). 2 Yet the majority finds waiver of the defendant’s right to assert this fundamental error on appeal solely by conjecture arising from (a) his trial lawyer’s general participation in the authoritative on the point notwithstanding that the court also relied on another ground for its decision”).

2023See Denson v. State, 775 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2000) (applying res judicata to deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus where defendant raised the same claim in a prior postconviction motion decided against him on the merits and defendant had exhausted all appropriate appellate review); see also State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (recognizing a “manifest injustice” exception to a claim otherwise barred by application of res judicata or collateral estoppel but holding that application of such a bar to defendant’s successive motion did not result in a manifest injustice); State v. Weaver,

2016Fundamental error occurs when the error “reach[es] 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.” State v. Weaver, 957 So.2d 586 (Fla.2007) (quoting Delva, 575 So.2d at 644-45 ).

2025In the absence of a contemporaneous objection at trial, a jury instruction error is only subject to relief in the event of fundamental error.” (citations omitted)); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993) (“Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of the case.

2009Also, a fundamental error is described as one “where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.” Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993).

2010ANALYSIS This Court has previously held that in order to preserve a sustained objection for appellate review, “[u]nless the improper argument constitutes a fundamental error, a motion for a mistrial must be made ‘at the time the improper comment was made.’ ” Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla.1985) (quoting Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978)).

2004See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 726 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1999) (recognizing that fundamental error is error that reaches 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); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978) (distinguishing fundamental error from constitutional error and holding that the constitution does not mandate an absolute rule requiring reversal in every case where there has been an improper comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent), overruled in part on other grounds, State

2017Upon this record, we determine that these comments did not rise to the level of fundamental error, Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 898-99 (Fla. 2000), and that the trial court could reasonably conclude “that the improper closing argument ... was not harmful, incurable, or of a character to so damage the fairness of the trial that the public’s interest in our system of justice requires a new trial.” Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1032 (Fla. 2000).

2014Relief is granted for a fundamental error not because the party has preserved a right to relief from a harmful error, but because, the public’s confidence in our system of justice would be seriously weakened if the courts failed to give relief as a matter of grace for certain, very limited and serious mistakes.” Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A, 666 So.2d 580, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) disapproved of on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000).