BREEDEN v. STATE (2017)

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.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   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.

WINOKUR, J.

OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.