MATTHEW ANTONIO GLOVER
v.
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.
An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal unless it was properly preserved at trial through a timely, contemporaneous objection stating a specific legal ground.
[1] Proper preservation of an issue for appellate review requires three components: a timely, contemporaneous objection at trial; a stated legal ground for the objection; and…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was presented to the lower court.”
Steinhorst v. State, cited for the general rule that issues must be presented to the trial court to be cognizable on appeal.
Matthew Antonio Glover appealed a criminal conviction from the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appeal involved issues that Glover raised on appea…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0293 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-008541
MATTHEW ANTONIO GLOVER, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Vincent S. Chiu, Judge.
July 17, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 940 (Fla. 2005) ("Moreover, we consistently have stated that proper preservation entails three components. First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection. Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection. Third, ‘[i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below." (quoting Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982) (“Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was presented to the lower court."))); accord Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493, 499 (Fla. 1992) (stating that "the specific legal ground upon which a claim is based must be raised at trial and a claim different than that will not be heard on appeal").
WOZNIAK, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005)
- Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1992)