Fredricks v. State

Michael T. FREDRICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 21, 1983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-10-21

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1986

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Ex post facto application of the retention statute is not fundamental error and objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Cofield v. State

Relies on 414 So. 2d 509 - Williams v. State · 428 So. 2d 369 - N.U., Inc. v. T & R Seafood, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-10-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *434 Michael Allen, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3MILLS, Judge.

¶4Fredricks contends the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction for the first half of four sentences pursuant to Section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982). The crimes were committed on 5 March 1982, and the statute as amended took effect on 20 April 1982. Chapter 82-171, Section 19, Laws of Florida. Nevertheless, we affirm because the issue was not raised below.

¶5Ex post facto application of the retention statute is not fundamental error and objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review. Williams v. State,414 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1982); Brown v. State,428 So.2d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

¶6AFFIRMED.

¶7SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.