Matthew Antonio Glover v. State of Florida

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2025-0293

Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-008541

_____________________________

MATTHEW ANTONIO GLOVER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Vincent S. Chiu, Judge.

July 17, 2026

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 940 (Fla. 2005)

(“Moreover, we consistently have stated that proper preservation entails three components. First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection. Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection. Third, ‘[i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.’” (quoting Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982) (“Except in cases of

2

fundamental error, an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was presented to the lower court.”))); accord Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493, 499 (Fla. 1992) (stating that “the specific legal ground upon which a claim is based must be raised at trial and a claim different than that will not be heard on appeal”). WOZNIAK, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED