CHARLES WESLEY O'BERRY, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed O'Berry's conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error and holding that petitioner's critical contentions were not preserved for appellate review due to lack of proper and timely objection at trial.
A defendant must make proper and timely objections at trial to preserve issues for appellate review, and absent fundamental error, failure to do so bars appellate consideration.
[1] A defendant must make proper and timely objections to the introduction of evidence at trial to preserve such objections for appellate review, except in cases involving fu…
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 intelligenceCharles Wesley O'Berry was convicted and sentenced. He petitioned for habeas corpus relief on appeal, raising multiple contentions that he claimed dem…
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 Timely Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon careful review of the record, briefs of counsel and argument in this cause we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated and the judgment and conviction should be affirmed. Although this matter has proceeded for full appellate review by way of habeas corpus under the authority of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 577, we are not convinced that the record demonstrates that petitioner’s right to appeal was frustrated by state action.
Nonetheless, each of the matters assigned as error were analyzed and considered and found to be without merit. Of particular significance is the fact that none of the critical contentions of the petitioner were brought before the trial court by a proper and timely objection; consequently, they have not been preserved for appellate review. State v. Barber, Fla., 301 So. 2d 7, opinion filed June 12, 1974; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 862; New v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 35; Dodd v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 235; State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So. 2d 515; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, sec. 68; Rule 3.190(h), FRCrP. Except where fundamental error is involved, and we find none to exist here) it is essential that a defendant properly and timely object to the introdtiction of evidence in order to preserve his objection for appellate review. Simpson v. State, supra. Accordingly, finding no reversible error, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.
WALDEN, MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…w an objection at trial contemporaneously with admission of the contested evidence constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review of an alleged error, even though issues of constitutional dimension are claimed to exist. O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Tennant v. State, 205 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). See a iso Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Nevertheless, because of the importance of the issues raised by defendant, we deem it advis…
-
DeLUCA v. State, 384 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…nstitute a waiver. We disagree. The failure to object at trial contemporaneously with the admission of the evidence is a waiver of the right to appellate review of the issue. Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Witt v. State, 4th DCA Case No. 79-621, Opinion filed May 14, 1980. The defendant also asserts that his statements to the police officer should have been suppressed. He argues that his Miranda rights should have been repeated b…
-
State v. Rusti H. Osvath, 661 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…. 200, 31 So. 2d 259 (1947); Fraterrigo v. State, 151 Fla. 634, 10 So. 2d 361 (1942); Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 114 So. 534 (1927); Wright v. State, 309 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 323 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1975); O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Hernandez v. State, 273 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert, denied, 277 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1973); Koedatich v. State, 263 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, dismissed, 268 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1972); Dickenson v. State, 261 So. 2d 561 (F…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)
- Simpson v. State, 211 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Dodd v. State, 232 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- NEW v. State, 211 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)