Title: Dailey v. State
Citation: 488 So. 2d 532
Docket Number: 67381
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 1986

488 So. 2d 532 (1986)
Roosevelt DAILEY, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 67381.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 22, 1986.
*533 Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Attorney General and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
McDONALD, Justice.
We accepted jurisdiction to answer the following question of great public interest:
Dailey v. State, 471 So. 2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We answer the question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court on this issue. As stated by the district court:
Id. at 1350-51 (footnotes omitted).
We contrast this opinion with our opinion in State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986). In Whitfield it was apparent from the record that points had been scored for victim injury when Whitfield had been convicted of aggravated assault, a crime not involving victim injury. Dailey, on the other hand, was convicted of aggravated battery, a crime that denotes some injury. In Whitfield we stated: "Sentencing errors which do not produce an illegal sentence still require a contemporaneous objection if they are to be preserved for appeal." Id., at 1046.
This record does not disclose that Dailey's sentence was illegal and, under his circumstances, Dailey's failure to contest the correctness of his scoresheet at the trial level precludes appellate review thereof. We therefore answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the district court's opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.