Clakley v. State
Following an open plea to second-degree murder and felon-in-possession, Clakley challenged the sentencing process (reliance on uncharged first-degree murder conduct and admission of unsworn victim impact statements) and a $2 cost. The First DCA held it was precluded from reviewing unpreserved sentencing-process claims—even for fundamental error—under Rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii) and its recent decision in Emerson v. State, and certified the same question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court. The court also found no fundamental error even if it could reach the merits, and affirmed the $2 cost under Malden v. State.
Key facts
- Clakley entered an open plea to second-degree murder and felon-in-possession of a firearm.
- The trial court sentenced Clakley while referencing uncharged first-degree murder conduct and admitted unsworn victim impact statements.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is notable primarily for certifying, alongside Emerson v. State, a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether pleading defendants can ever raise unpreserved… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.