EVERETT v. STATE (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Brian Antonio EVERETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-1786

Decided: August 17, 2020

Rodney G. Gregory of The Gregory Law Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

In this direct appeal from a judgment and sentence, Brian Antonio Everett raises claims of sentencing error that he did not preserve by either a contemporaneous objection or a rule 3.800(b) motion. See Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 569 (Fla. 2008) (clarifying that an appellate court may not review a “sentencing error,” even if fundamental, for the first time on appeal); see also Daniels v. State, 118 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“Claims that the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either with a contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief.”). Because Everett failed to preserve his claims in the trial court, his remedy, if any, must be by proper motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Ray, C.J., and B.L. Thomas and Kelsey, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network