JOHN M. SHEA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
This case involves an appeal from a conviction for receiving stolen property. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the appellant's primary argument for suppressing evidence, raised for the first time on appeal, could not be considered.
No, an appellate court will generally not consider an issue that was not presented to the lower court. Therefore, the new ground for suppression raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered.
“It is a well settled principle of law that an appellate court will usually not consider that which has not been presented below.”
Establishes the general rule regarding issues not raised in the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property. He moved to suppress evidence obtained during his arrest, arguing a lack of probable cause a…
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 Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals from his conviction of the crime of receiving or concealing stolen property.
Appellant’s principal contention of error is that the criminal court of record erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained at the time of his arrest. Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that there was no probable cause to justify the arrest and search incidental thereto, and further, that an illegal search was conducted prior to the arrest. The trial judge conducted a hearing on this motion at which time testimony was taken and other evidence heard in regard to the motion. Thereafter, the motion to suppress was denied.
At the trial, appellant raised the same objection, on the same grounds, prior to the introduction of the evidence and again his objections were overruled.
On appeal, in his main brief, appellant argues basically the same grounds for suppression of the evidence, but in his reply brief, and for the first time in the entire proceedings, appellant presents a different ground for suppressing this evidence. The new ground alleged is that the arrest was illegal and consequently, any search incidental thereto was unlawful because the police officers did not announce their presence and intention prior to entering the appellant’s premises.1 It is a well settled principle of law that an appellate court will usually not consider that which has not been presented below.2 Where an objection to the admission of evidence is on a particular ground as here, and no other, no new or other ground may be considered by the appellate court.3 Inasmuch as, this ground for objection was not presented to the trial court, we will not consider it.
We have considered all of the other assignments of error raised by appellant, and have determined them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
McPHEE v. State, 254 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…So. 69. . 2 Fla.Jur. 421, Appeals, § 87; Rule 3.7, subd. i, F.A.R. 32 F.S.A.; Jones v. State (Fla.App.1967), 200 So. 2d 574. . State v. Jones (Fla.1967), 204 So. 2d 515; Morgan v. State (Fla.App.1964), 177 So. 2d 60; Shea v. State (Fla.App.1964), 167 So. 2d 767.…
-
Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…egal arrest and the subsequent search and seizure. Generally, the grounds relied upon during an appeal must be the same as those relied upon for objection at trial. Bertone [*670] y. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 400; Shea v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 767; and 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 86. Since a different ground is argued on appeal than the one relied upon at trial we hold that Reis has not shown that reversible error was made in the denial of her motion for mistrial. She next contends that the same te…
-
Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…re to raise such objection constitutes a waiver. The objection cannot be raised either at a later stage of the proceedings or on appeal, even though a motion to suppress the evidence was preliminarily made and denied by the court. See Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Koran v. State, 213 So. 2d 735, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Also see Rodriguez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); State v. Dixon, 348 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The sixth and final point is that the court erred in publ…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)
- North v. State, 65 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1953)
- Dewey v. State, 135 Fla. 443 (Fla. 1938)
- Sims v. State, 54 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1907)