THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHIE CORNUZ, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the suppression order because the State failed to preserve the argument it raised on appeal by not presenting it to the trial court.
The State appealed a suppression order, arguing that information received by an officer, not personally observed, could be considered for probable cau…
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
The State of Florida appeals from a suppression order based on an argument that was never presented to the trial court — that in assessing probable cause for a loitering and prowling arrest, other information received but not personally observed by an officer may be considered. Pursuant to the Criminal Appeal Reform Act, section 924.051(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and longstanding case law, this point is waived and we therefore affirm.
The State failed to preserve for review its claim that the circuit court’s order is inconsistent with State v. Cortez, 705 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Not only did the State not preserve or present to the circuit court the argument it raises in this appeal, it affirmatively agreed with the circuit court’s statement, which was contrary to Cortez, that the validity of a loitering and prowling arrest hinges solely upon the officer’s own observations.
Even before the enactment of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act, it was firmly established that “[i]n 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.” Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985). The Criminal Appeal Reform Act now provides that an issue is properly preserved if “an issue, legal argument, or objection ... was timely raised before, and ruled on by, the trial court, and that the issue, legal argument, or objection ... was sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.” Fla. Stat. § 924.051(1)(b) (2001).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…t enough to support a stop.” Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186.8 Lastly, we turn to the state’s eleventh-hour plain view doctrine argument. This argument fails because it was not [*406] preserved for appellate review. This was addressed in State v. Cornuz, 816 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), where the state sought to present an argument, on appeal from a suppression order, that was not presented to the trial court. As Comuz states, the Criminal Appeal Reform Act, § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002), forbids considerat…
-
Holley v. State, 877 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…he specific argument that a lay witness was improperly allowed to give expert opinion testimony was not raised and preserved in the trial court. See § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002); Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); State v. Cornuz, 816 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). III. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in permitting and participating in the constant interruption of defense counsel during opening statement, and closing argument, possibly suggesting to the jury that the judge di…
-
Cotton v. State, 901 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…detained him until the eyewitness was brought over for a show up. We note initially that this ■ fourth amendment argument was not preserved for appellate review because it was not raised as part of the suppression motion below. See State v. Cornuz, 816 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); State v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Even if it had been preserved, it would not have been meritorious. Cotton was initially stopped and detained by the police as he approached and tried to enter a car that had bee…
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Cortez, 705 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)