Pridgeon v. State

737 So. 2d 636, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10050, 1999 WL 551308
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 29, 1999·No. Nos. 97-4874, 98-2139·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Pridgeon asserts that key evidence should have been suppressed because the affidavit upon which a search warrant was based did not give probable cause for the warrant.

We are unable to reach the merits of Pridgeon’s argument because, although a motion to suppress was filed and a hearing was held on the issue, trial counsel at each of Pridgeon’s trials failed to object contemporaneously to introduction of the evidence [637]*637and thereby failed to preserve the issue for appeal. See Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954 (Fla.1996); Davis v. State, 728 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Randall v. State, 718 So.2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Coffee v. State, 699 So.2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN, LAWRENCE, and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Pridgeon v. State, 737 So. 2d 636, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10050, 1999 WL 551308 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

737 So. 2d 636 (Pridgeon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. State
776 So. 2d 1124 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)