Person v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Person v. State

245 So. 3d 1002

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 16, 2018

DocketNo. 3D17–799

StatusPublished

This text of 245 So. 3d 1002 (Person 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

Person v. State, 245 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. G.E.G. v. State, 417 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1982) (holding a defendant convicted of possession of a controlled substance cannot complain on appeal that the state failed to introduce the substance into evidence unless the defendant preserved this *1003claim by objecting at trial to its non-introduction); McHolder v. State, 917 So.2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (stating "McHolder argues that his due process rights were violated by his conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell because the State never introduced the cocaine evidence at trial. Because this argument was not made to the trial court, it was not preserved for appellate review"). See also Trinidad v. State, 615 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ; Priestly v. State, 450 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. G.E.G. v. State, 417 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1982) (holding a defendant convicted of possession of a controlled substance cannot complain on appeal that the state failed to introduce the substance into evidence unless the defendant preserved this *1003claim by objecting at trial to its non-introduction); McHolder v. State, 917 So.2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (stating "McHolder argues that his due process rights were violated by his conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell because the State never introduced the cocaine evidence at trial. Because this argument was not made to the trial court, it was not preserved for appellate review"). See also Trinidad v. State, 615 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ; Priestly v. State, 450 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 So. 3d 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/person-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack