ALVIN LEWIS GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Alvin Lewis Green was convicted by jury of two counts of robbery with a firearm and two counts of attempted murder. On appeal, Green challenged the admission of a victim's pretrial identification and the trial court's denial of his requests to excuse two jurors for cause, but the court affirmed the conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds. First, Green failed to preserve the suggestiveness issue by not renewing his objection at trial. Second, Green failed to preserve the notice issue by not presenting this argument to the trial court at the suppression hearing or at trial. Third, Green failed to demonstrate reversible error regarding the jury challenges because he did not exhaust all his peremptory challenges and was therefore not forced to accept an unacceptable juror.
[1] Failure to object at trial to the admission of contested evidence waives the defendant's right to claim on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.
[2] In order to preserve an issue for appeal, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Failure to object at trial to admission of contested evidence waives the defendant's right to claim on appeal the evidence was erroneously admitted.”
Establishes the preservation rule requiring trial-level objections to evidence to preserve appellate issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen was found guilty by jury of two counts of robbery with a firearm, one count of attempted first degree murder, and one count of attempted second …
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 Motion To Suppress Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence entered against appellant after a jury had found him guilty of two counts of robbery with a firearm, one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder. We affirm.
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the victim’s pretrial identification of him because the identification procedure was impermissi-bly suggestive. The state responds that appellant did not preserve this issue because he failed to object to use of the pretrial identification at trial.
Although appellant moved to suppress the identification prior to trial, he did not renew his objection at trial. Failure to object at trial to admission of contested evidence waives the defendant’s right to claim on appeal the evidence was erroneously admitted. See Roban v. State, 384 So. 2d 683, 684-685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Witt v. State, 388 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Bonham v. State, 450 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As a result, appellant did not preserve this issue for appeal.
Appellant next argues that the court should have excluded the pretrial identification because his counsel was not notified that a court proceeding was going to be used as the method of pretrial identification. The state again argues appellant did not preserve this issue.
Appellant did not present this argument to the court at the hearing on the motion to suppress the pretrial identification or at trial. In order to preserve an issue for appeal, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court. Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902, 906 (Fla.1990) (quoting Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So. 2d 1095, 1096 (Fla.1987)). Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review.
Appellant finally argues that the trial court erred in refusing to excuse two of the three jurors he challenged for cause. After the court refused to excuse the two jurors for cause, appellant used two of his peremptory challenges to have them removed.
Where a defendant seeks reversal based on a claim that he was wrongfully forced to exercise his peremptory challenges, he must show that all peremptory challenges had been exhausted and that an objectionable juror had to be accepted. Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla.1990) quoting, Pentecost v. State, 545 So. 2d 861, 863 n. 1 (Fla.1989). Appellant did not exhaust all of his peremptory challenges in the instant case; therefore, he was not forced to accept an unacceptable juror. Id. As a result, appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gaines, 770 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2000)…State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982). . In fact, pursuant to prior case law, a defendant is required to renew a pretrial motion to suppress at the time the evidence is introduced in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. See Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Wykle v. State, 659 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). This principle is in recognition of the possibility that the trial court might change its prior ruling based on the testimony and evidence introduced at trial. Other…
-
Charvester Anthony v. State, 854 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…lectronic monitoring was fundamental error. We disagree. By failing to object at the revocation hearing, Anthony failed to preserve the issue and he waived his right to claim on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted. See Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Newman v. State, 676 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Additionally, based on all of the evidence contained in the record, any error does not rise to the level of fundamental error. See Newman, 676 So. 2d at 41. Because it…
-
Henley v. State, 719 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ocaine as evidence. As pointed out by the state, appellant failed to object to the evidence when it was admitted into evidence. Thus, appellant waived any error regarding its admission, and this issue is not preserved for appeal. See Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). To counter this preservation problem, appellant claims that this court can review the error absent an objection at trial because the failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance of…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990)
- Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990)
- Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1987)
- Bell v. State, 545 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1989)
- Pentecost v. State, 545 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1989)
- Roban v. State, 384 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Bonham v. State, 450 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Witt v. State, 388 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)