County Criminal Court: APPELLATE PROCEDURE – Preservation of Error – State failed to specifically object the that portion of the sentence it know claims to be improper. Therefore, the error was not preserved for appellate review. – Sentence affirmed.  State v. Simmons, No. CRC 04-2 APANO (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. Dec. 20. 2004).

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

 

 

 

STATE OF FLORIDA

 

            Appellant,

 

Appeal No. CRC 04-00002 APANO

v.                                                                                                                   UCN522004AP00002XXXXCR

 

 

MELISSA SIMMONS

 

            Appellee.

________________________/

 

 

Opinion filed ____________.

 

Appeal from a sentence

entered by the Pinellas County Court

County Judge Sonny Im

 

Eric Herrmann, Esq.

Assistant State Attorney

 

Frank Winstead, Esq.

Attorney for appellee

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            (J. Demers)

 

           

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from a sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the sentence.

            The State claims that the sentence is illegal because the trial court withheld adjudication of guilt without imposing probation as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.670.

This Court, however, need not reach the merits of the claim. The record reveals that the State failed to properly preserve this issue for appellate review.

 Nothing whatsoever was mentioned about the failure to impose probation. All the State did was enter a vague objection to the sentence. Specifically, the State said “the State would object to a withhold and to invest costs of that amount.” R. 31. The State then suggested a sentence. Later after the court announced its sentence, the State said: “the State would object to that on the record.” R. 33. This did not put the trial court or the defense counsel on notice that there was anything technically improper about the sentence. It could have been that the State believed the sentence was just too lenient or that it believed the amount of costs was too low. It did not inform the trial court if the objection was to the withhold of adjudication by itself, or to the withhold without probation. The State’s objection never even mentioned the word “probation.”

 “An issue is preserved for appeal if the attorney’s articulated concern is sufficiently specific to inform the court of the alleged error.” State v. Paulk, 813 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In the case at bar, this Court concludes that the State failed to meet this burden. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for appellate review, and this Court must affirm the sentence.


IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of December, 2004.                       

 

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                                David A. Demers

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                                Robert J. Morris, Jr.

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                                Irene S. Sullivan

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

cc:   State Attorney

       Frank Winstead, Esq.

       Judge Im