Kent v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kent v. State

755 So. 2d 805, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4491, 2000 WL 380238

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kent v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13615 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 17, 2000·No. No. 1D99-2295·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the sole issue raised by appellant was not preserved for review because the argument made on appeal was not made in the trial court. § 924.051(l)(b) & (3), Fla. Stat. (1999). See Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 961 (Fla.1996) (“for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as the legal ground for objection, exception, or motion below”). [806]*806To the extent any error occurred, it is not “fundamental.” Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the sole issue raised by appellant was not preserved for review because the argument made on appeal was not made in the trial court. § 924.051(l)(b) & (3), Fla. Stat. (1999). See Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 961 (Fla.1996) (“for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as the legal ground for objection, exception, or motion below”). [806]*806To the extent any error occurred, it is not “fundamental.” Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.

Kent v. State, 755 So. 2d 805, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4491, 2000 WL 380238 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

755 So. 2d 805 (Kent v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related