SEE MAHARAJ
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Roosevelt Desravines appealed his conviction for petit theft (retail) over $100, challenging the admission of surveillance video testimony and photographs of stolen items, and contesting whether evidence sufficiently proved the items' value exceeded $100. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Desravines waived his objections by failing to timely object at trial and that the admitted evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve his objections to the evidence for appeal by failing to timely object at trial and by affirmatively representing he had no objections, thereby waiving appellate review. Additionally, the admitted evidence (photographs and loss prevention officer's testimony regarding retail price) was legally sufficient to support the motion for judgment of acquittal being properly denied.
[1] An appellate court will not consider an argument that evidence was improperly admitted if the party failed to make a timely and proper objection at trial.
[2] When trial counsel affirmatively represents they have no objections to the admission of certain evidence, they have intentionally waived any argument to the contrary for…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When trial counsel affirmatively represents he has no objections to the admission of certain evidence, he has intentionally waived any argument to the contrary.”
Establishes that explicit representations of no objection at trial constitute waiver of appellate arguments regarding that evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDesravines was charged with petit theft (retail) of more than $100. A loss prevention officer from a department store testified regarding contents of …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, LUBET, and O’KANE, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
Roosevelt Desravines (Appellant) appeals his conviction for Petit Theft (Retail) of More Than $100. We have carefully considered his initial brief, the record on appeal, the applicable law, and have read the entire trial transcript. We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320, and affirm. Since Appellant failed to object to the department store loss prevention officer’s testimony as to the contents of a surveillance video, and stated he had no objections to the admission in evidence of several photographs taken of the stolen items, he has failed to preserve these two arguments for appeal. In the absence of a timely and proper objection at trial, an appellate court will not consider an argument that evidence was improperly admitted. See Maharaj v. State, 597 2 of 3 So. 2d 786, 790 (Fla. 1992) (“At trial, [appellant] failed to object when the [hearsay newspaper] articles were presented and admitted into evidence; Polite v. State, 41 So. 3d 935, 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); (litigants must make a timely contemporaneous objection in trial to preserve an issue for appellate review); U.S. v. Redditt, 381 F. 3d 597,602 (7th Cir. 2004) (“When trial counsel affirmatively represents he has no objections to the admission of certain evidence, he has intentionally waived any argument to the contrary.”) Consequently we find that he did not preserve the issue for appellate review.
As to his third and last argument, we find that the photographs and the loss prevention officer’s un-objected to hearsay testimony was sufficient to withstand Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on grounds that there was not legally sufficient evidence that the fair market value of the stolen items was more than $100. See Baker v. State, 336 So. 364, 366 (Fla. 1976) (inadmissible hearsay evidence admitted without objection may properly be considered); Laws v. State, 356 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (inadmissible evidence received without objection may be considered in determining facts in issue an denial of motion for judgment of acquittal affirmed); Jackson v. State, 23 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (where the theft is from a department store, evidence of retail price is sufficient to establish fair market value of the merchandise). The trial court was correct in denying the motion. Consequently, Appellant’s judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this __9th___ day of ___January___, 2012.
__/S/_______________________
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
__/S/________________________ MARC L. LUBET JULIE H. O’KANE Circuit Judge Circuit Judge 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Robert Sauerheber, P.A., P.O. Box 1944, Orlando, Florida 32802-1944; David H. Margolis, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673; and Honorable Jerry L. Brewer, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, this _10th___ day of _January_________, 2012.
_/S/________________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Darius Jamine Polite v. State, 41 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Laws v. State, 356 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Jackson v. State, 23 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)