M.L.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.L.D. v. State

694 So. 2d 128, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5961, 1997 WL 282854

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 30, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2376

StatusPublished

This text of 694 So. 2d 128 (M.L.D. 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.

Bluebook

M.L.D. v. State, 694 So. 2d 128, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5961, 1997 WL 282854 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellee’s Motion for Rehearing, we grant the motion, withdraw our opinion filed March 27, 1997, and substitute this opinion.

M.L.D. appeals his adjudication and disposition for the misdemeanor offense of trespass on grounds or facilities of a public school.¹ M.L.D. was suspended from school and arrested when he returned before his suspension expired. On appeal, M.L.D. argues, for the first time, that he was denied equal protection because another suspended student returned to school the same day he did, but was not arrested and charged. An appellate court will not consider an issue unless a contemporaneous objection to an alleged error was raised below or unless the error was fundamental. Wykle v. State, 659 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). M.L.D. did not raise this issue at the adjudicatory hearing and the error was not fundamental.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellee’s Motion for Rehearing, we grant the motion, withdraw our opinion filed March 27, 1997, and substitute this opinion.

M.L.D. appeals his adjudication and disposition for the misdemeanor offense of trespass on grounds or facilities of a public school.¹ M.L.D. was suspended from school and arrested when he returned before his suspension expired. On appeal, M.L.D. argues, for the first time, that he was denied equal protection because another suspended student returned to school the same day he did, but was not arrested and charged. An appellate court will not consider an issue unless a contemporaneous objection to an alleged error was raised below or unless the error was fundamental. Wykle v. State, 659 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). M.L.D. did not raise this issue at the adjudicatory hearing and the error was not fundamental.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 So. 2d 128, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5961, 1997 WL 282854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mld-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack