Case Name: Raymond Wayne BREEDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-08-21
Citations: 226 So. 3d 336
Docket Number: CASE NO. 1D14-3749
Parties: Raymond Wayne BREEDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 226
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
Raymond Wayne BREEDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CASE NO. 1D14-3749
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Opinion filed August 21, 2017.
Rehearing Denied September 29, 2017
Diana L. Johnson of Johnson and Lufra-no, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant' Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
WINOKUR, J.
Appellant Raymond Wayne Bree-den appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed burglary. Breeden has identified numerous improper comments the prosecutor made in voir dire, in cross-examining him, and in closing argument. However, Breeden objected to none of these improper comments.
"As a general rule, . failing to raise a contemporaneous objection when improper closing argument comments are made waives any claim concerning such comments for appellate' review." Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 898 (Fla. 2000). "The sole exception to the general'rule is where the unobjected-to comments rise to the level of fundamental error, which has been defined as error that 'reaches 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.' " Id. at 898-99 (quoting McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999)). While many of the prosecutor's comments identified by Breeden were improper, after a careful review of the record, we find none of them meet the fundamental-error standard, either individually or cumulatively.
Affirmed.
OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Breeden also identifies some prosecutorial comments to which he did object, but the trial court's rulings on those objections do not constitute reversible error.