GLADSTON LINGO
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed because appellant failed to preserve issues for appellate review by presenting specific legal arguments to the lower court.
[1] To preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground to be raised on appeal must be presented to the lower court.
[2] Relevant evidence may be excluded under Florida Statute section 90.403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGladston Lingo appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved questions of issue preservation and evidentiary r…
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 Harmless Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0640 Lower Tribunal No. F21-12467 ________________
Gladston Lingo, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge.
Clayton R. Kaeiser, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Camilo Montoya, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985) (“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”); Burton v. State, 237 So. 3d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Despite the fact that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 90.403 provides for the exclusion of relevant evidence if ‘its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’” (quoting Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1, 21–22 (Fla. 2003))); Perry v. State, 395 So. 2d 170, 174 (Fla. 1980) (“Disclosure requirements for the prosecution principally concern those matters not accessible to the defense in the course of reasonably diligent preparation.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003)
- Perry v. State, 395 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1980)
- Lbmp Holdings, LLC v. Biarritz Gh, LLC, 237 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)