Reginald L. Henry v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reginald L. Henry v. State of Florida

230 So. 3d 56

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-2415

StatusPublished

This text of 230 So. 3d 56 (Reginald L. Henry v. State of Florida) 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

Reginald L. Henry v. State of Florida, 230 So. 3d 56 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of two pretrial motions to suppress regarding a recording the victim made on her cell phone of a conversation with Appellant in which he made threats in an apparent attempt to extort money from her. It is well-settled that “to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made , at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” Carr v. State, 156 So.3d 1052, 1062 (Fla. 2015) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)). Although section 90,104(1), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that, “[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting ... evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection ,.. to-preserve a claim of error for appeal,” the statute does not apply to the circumstances in the instant case. Here, the trial court denied both of Appellant’s motions to 'suppress and ruled the recording was admissible. Subsequently, at trial, the State moved to introduce the recording, and Appellant’s counsel affirmatively stated, “no objection.” Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Carr, counsel’s statement of “no objection” acted to abandon or waive the prior motions to suppress. See 156 So.3d at 1062. Accordingly, this issue was not preserved for appeal, and we affirm without further discussion.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of two pretrial motions to suppress regarding a recording the victim made on her cell phone of a conversation with Appellant in which he made threats in an apparent attempt to extort money from her. It is well-settled that “to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made , at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” Carr v. State, 156 So.3d 1052, 1062 (Fla. 2015) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)). Although section 90,104(1), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that, “[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting ... evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection ,.. to-preserve a claim of error for appeal,” the statute does not apply to the circumstances in the instant case. Here, the trial court denied both of Appellant’s motions to 'suppress and ruled the recording was admissible. Subsequently, at trial, the State moved to introduce the recording, and Appellant’s counsel affirmatively stated, “no objection.” Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Carr, counsel’s statement of “no objection” acted to abandon or waive the prior motions to suppress. See 156 So.3d at 1062. Accordingly, this issue was not preserved for appeal, and we affirm without further discussion.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 So. 3d 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reginald-l-henry-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack