Jones v. State , 271 So. 3d 109 ( 2019 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 6, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-1941
Lower Tribunal No. 15-23155
________________
Willie Jones,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch,
Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
HENDON, J.
Willie Jones appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence on
the charges of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to sell,
and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jones argues on appeal that certain of the
trial court’s comments shifted the burden of proof and prejudiced his defense at
trial. None of these comments were objected to at trial. Thus, we will reverse only
if the comment was 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.’” Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d
879, 899 (Fla. 2000); see also Jones v. State, 612 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1992) (holding
that the contemporaneous objection rule applies to such comments and an appellate
court will not reverse in the absence of an objection unless the comment is so
prejudicial as to be fundamental error); Pope v. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla.
1986) (concluding that errors other than those constituting fundamental error are
waived unless timely raised in the trial court).
After a thorough examination of the record on appeal, we find no
fundamental error in the trial court’s comments. Indeed, not every act or comment
that might be interpreted as demonstrating less than neutrality on the part of the
judge will be deemed fundamental error. Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.
4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ convictions.
2
Finally, Jones asserts that there is a discrepancy between the oral
pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order. This error was not
preserved by a contemporaneous objection during the sentencing hearing or by
raising the issue under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), which
precludes Jones from raising the error on direct appeal. See Brannon v. State, 850
So. 2d 452, 456 (Fla. 2003); Green v. State, 224 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
As we find that Jones has neither properly preserved the trial court's alleged
sentencing error, nor demonstrated fundamental error on appeal, we affirm his
sentence without prejudice to Jones to raise this issue in an appropriately filed rule
3.800 motion with the trial court.
Affirmed.
3