Case Name: Kenneth HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-09-19
Citations: 700 So. 2d 728
Docket Number: No. 96-3130
Parties: Kenneth HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 700
Pages: 728–731

Head Matter:
Kenneth HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-3130.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sept. 19, 1997.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1997.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maximilhan J. Changus, As sistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
This appeal concerns only claims of sentencing error. The errors asserted are (1) that the court sentenced the defendant to a term greater than the balance of his "true split sentence," and (2) that the sentence imposed exceeded a "one cell bump." Since these claimed errors were not preserved by objection below or by means of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, however, there is nothing for this court to review. § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (1996 Supp.).
This is a perfect case to illustrate the salutary purpose of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act. Because there was no objection below to the sentence complained of on appeal, the sentencing history of this "frequent violator" is unclear and confusing. The state finds itself speculating about the basis for the earlier 1995 sentence, whether the defendant had served community control in case No. 91-3963 by 1995, whether there were intervening felonies, how ihány "bump-ups" are appropriate, and so on. If this sentence had been objected to at the time of its imposition or, even afterward, if defendant had invoked his right under Rule 3.800 to complain about the sentence below, none of these and other mysteries would perplex us on appeal. Appellate courts are not the place to litigate these issues for the first time. From our study of the file, it appears the sentence imposed can be correct; whether it is correct is not clear. In any event, appellant has failed to demonstrate error.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., dissents, with opinion.
. The state's brief is odd. As the dissent notes, the state muses (apropos of nothing argued by the defendant) that perhaps the defendant's two-year community control sentence had expired when he was resentenced in 1995. This is the basis of the dissent's "double jeopardy" concern. The record shows, however, that the defendant was placed on community control in August 1991 and immediately sent to Dade County to answer charges there. He was to report to community control upon his release from jail in Dade, but, upon his release on September 16, 1991, he did not report for community control in Volusia County. Instead, he disappeared until he was arrested four years later in Daytona using an alias and a Connecticut address. A violation report was filed in Volusia in November 1991. How this case can represent a double jeopardy problem is a mystery. The defendant (who no doubt is well aware he wasn't serving community control between 1991 and 1995) doesn't even make this argument and we need not, indeed, cannot consider it on appeal.