Raymond Wayne Breeden v. State of Florida

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
RAYMOND WAYNE BREEDEN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D14-3749
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed August 21, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Mark Hulsey, Judge.
Diana L. Johnson of Johnson and Lufrano, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
WINOKUR, J.
Appellant Raymond Wayne Breeden appeals his convictions and sentences
for first-degree murder and armed burglary. Breeden has identified numerous
improper comments the prosecutor made in voir dire, in cross-examining him, and
in closing argument. However, Breeden objected to none of these improper
comments. *
“As a general rule, . . . failing to raise a contemporaneous objection when
improper closing argument comments are made waives any claim concerning such
comments for appellate review.” Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879, 898 (Fla. 2000).
“The sole exception to the general rule is where the unobjected-to comments rise to
the level of fundamental error, which has been defined as 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.’” Id. at 898-99 (quoting
McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). While many of the prosecutor’s
comments identified by Breeden were improper, after a careful review of the record,
we find none of them meet the fundamental-error standard, either individually or
cumulatively.
Affirmed.
OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
*
Breeden also identifies some prosecutorial comments to which he did object,
but the trial court’s rulings on those objections do not constitute reversible error.
2