Klarich v. State

730 So. 2d 419, 1999 WL 234783
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 23, 1999·No. 98-172·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

730 So.2d 419 (1999)

Stephen J. KLARICH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-172.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 23, 1999.

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

Klarich v. State, 730 So. 2d 419, 1999 WL 234783 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

730 So. 2d 419 (Klarich v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Britt v. State
775 So. 2d 415 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Barfield v. State
762 So. 2d 564 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Klarich v. State
760 So. 2d 150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Maddox v. State
760 So. 2d 89 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Sessler v. State
740 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)