Opinion
No. 3D18-0992
10-23-2019
Hank Johnathan EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Hank Johnathan Edwards appeals a judgment and sentence arising from the trial court's finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that Edwards willfully violated his probation. As a result of its finding, the trial court sentenced Edwards to six years, with credit for time served, followed by five years' probation. Edwards argues the trial court departed from its role as neutral arbiter when it questioned the probation officer to fill in the gap in his testimony on the element of willfulness necessary to revoke probation. First, as is plain on the face of the transcript, defense counsel did not object. See McKenzie v. State, 29 So. 3d 272, 279 (Fla. 2010) ("McKenzie neither objected to the trial court's striking of juror Schultz nor did he file a motion to disqualify the trial court based upon this allegedly improper conduct. Therefore, the instant challenge is unpreserved and procedurally barred for appellate consideration. See Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347, 359 (Fla. 2005) (holding that for an issue to be preserved for appeal, the specific legal argument or ground to be argued must have been presented to the lower court), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1182, 126 S. Ct. 2359, 165 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2006).").
On the record before us, we do not find that the trial court's conduct constitutes fundamental error. See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1176 (Fla. 2006) ("In order for an error to be fundamental and justify reversal in the absence of a timely objection, ‘the error must reach 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.’ " (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960) ) (citing State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 645 (Fla. 1991) )); Mathew v. State, 837 So. 2d 1167, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("[N]ot every act or comment that might be interpreted as demonstrating less than neutrality on the part of the judge will be deemed fundamental error.").
Affirmed.