Klarich v. State
This text of 730 So. 2d 419 (Klarich v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Stephen J. KLARICH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maximillian J. Changus, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
We grant rehearing, withdraw our original opinion and substitute the following in its place.
Appellant contends that certain special conditions of his probation order are illegal and thus should be set aside. However, appellant made no objection to these conditions at the trial level nor did he file a motion to amend the probation order. Thus, his contentions have not been preserved for appeal. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(d); Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev. granted, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla.1998); Mason v. State, 698 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The errors complained of here do not appear to be fundamental in nature.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., W. SHARP, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
730 So. 2d 419, 1999 WL 234783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klarich-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.