Archer v. State (1993)

In Perez's motion to suppress, he asserted that his statements were obtained illegally because he was "coerced/forced or under duress at the times of the statements," and that he made the statements "without a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights and without the benefit of counsel." During the hearing on Perez's motion, his counsel made two specific assertions to the trial court: (1) that the statement "was given through misleading or confusing statements of Perez's ri…

“For an issue to be preserved for appeal ... it must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.” Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Id. at 566 ; see also Williams v. State, 622 So.2d 456, 463 (Fla. 1993) (holding that HAC "cannot be applied *609 vicariously, absent a showing by the State that the defendant directed or knew how the victim would be killed"); Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) ("[A] defendant who arranges for a killing but who is not present and who does not know how the murder will be accomplished cannot be subjected vicariously to the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator.").

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380(b) states that a motion for judgment of acquittal “must fully set forth the grounds on which it is based.” (Emphasis added.) See Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (holding argument that motion for judgment of acquittal was erroneously denied was not preserved where specific grounds argued on appeal were not raised in the trial court); see also Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982).

Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005); Doorbal v. State, 983 So. 2d 464, 492 (Fla. 2008); Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993).

“For an issue to be preserved for appeal . . . it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’” Reed v. State, 287 So. 3d 606 , 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)). 5 “Courts generally are unauthorized to award relief not requested in the parties’ pleadings.” Pure Powersports, LLC v. 7529 Salisbury Rd.

Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993).

Rather, it is apparent from reading the release that in order to settle the matter with [defendant], [plaintiffs] Marjorie and William would each be required to release [defendants] John, Joseph, and Quality if they chose to accept John's proposal.”) See also Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, . . . it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be pa…

Bradley, 33 So.3d at 675 (citing Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)); see also Thomas v. State, 787 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that the independent act doctrine does not apply “when the evidence demonstrates that the murder was committed in furtherance of the initial criminal scheme.”). “[A] shooting during an armed robbery is a foreseeable event.” Cannon v. State, 18 So.3d 562, 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Washington v. State, 873 So.2d 1268,…

“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or grounds to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.’ ” Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2005) (emphasis added) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)).

“For an issue to be preserved for appeal . . . it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’” Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985)).

However, “[f]or an issue to be preserved for appeal, . . . it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’” Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985) (emphasis added)).

Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, . . . it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’”) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985)).

“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or grounds to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.’ ” Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)).

However, this claim was not raised in Allen’s postconviction motion before the circuit court. lt therefore was not preserved for review. “ln order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or grounds to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.’ ” Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)).

See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978) ("[A] reviewing court will not consider points raised for the first time on appeal."); Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993) ("For an issue to be preserved for appeal, however, it 'must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.' " (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985))).

See Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978) (“[A] reviewing court will not consider points raised for the first time on appeal.”); Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, however, it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved,’ ” (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985))).

The law is well-established, however, that “[f]or an issue to be preserved for appeal, . . . it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’” See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)).

See id.; Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993).

Id.; see also Newell v. State, 875 So.2d 747, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reciting general rule that the party challenging a statute has the burden of establishing its invalidity, and rejecting without analysis constitutional challenge to statute where “conclusory argument demonstrate[d] no basis for reversal”); Perez v. State, 919 So.2d 347, 359 (Fla.2005) (holding that in order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue “ ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific …

Id.; see also Newell v. State, 875 So.2d 747, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reciting general rule that the party challenging a statute has the burden of establishing its invalidity, and rejecting without analysis constitutional challenge to statute where "conclusory argument demonstrate[d] no basis for reversal"); Perez v. State, 919 So.2d 347, 359 (Fla.2005) (holding that in order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue "`must be presented to the lower court and the specific l…

See Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304 (Fla.1994); Perez v. State, 711 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (holding that the independent act theory is inappropriate when the defendant created the situation and the victim’s death was a natural and foreseeable result of forces that the defendant set in motion).

To preserve an issue for appellate review, it “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.” Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993)).

To raise an argument on appeal, that argument must first be presented to the lower court at trial, “and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.” Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993).

"For an issue to be preserved for appeal, ... it `must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.'" Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)).

“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, ... it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’ ” Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)); Wright v. State, 857 So.2d 861, 876 (Fla.2003) (“In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must be presented to the lower court a…

An issue raised on appeal must first be presented to the lower court, "and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation." Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)).

"For an issue to be preserved for appeal, . . . it `must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.'" Perez v. State, 919 So.2d 347, 359 (Fla.2005) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)) (emphasis added), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2359 , 165 L.Ed.2d 285 (2006); see also Rimmer, 825 So.2d at 330 .

"For an issue to be preserved for appeal, . . . it `must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.'" Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993); Vacation Beach, Inc. v. Charles Boyd Const., Inc., 906 So.2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Parlier v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 622 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Because we conclude that the circuit court properly allowed McDonald to represent himself, these claims may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [2] Similarly, some of the other claims now asserted by CCRC are procedurally barred because they were not raised below. [3] See Perez v. State, 919 So.2d 347, 359 (Fla.2005) (holding that in order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue "must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be …

"For an issue to be preserved for appeal, . . . it `must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.'" Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)).

Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1993).

"For an issue to be preserved for appeal, ... it `must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.'" Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)).

In order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue "must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or grounds to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation." Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)).

"For an issue to be preserved for appeal, however, it `must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.'" Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)).

P. 3.380(b) (stating, in pertinent part, that a motion for judgment of acquittal "must fully set forth the grounds on which it is based"); Woods v. State, 733 So.2d 980, 984-85 (Fla.1999); Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993).

Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993); Harris v. State, 711 So.2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Green v. State, 711 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

W illiams v. Sta te, 622 So .2d 456, 4 63 (Fla. 19 93), cert. denied 510 U.S . 1000, 11 4 S.Ct. 570 , 126 L.Ed .2d 4 70 (1 993 ) (find ing he inous , atroc ious , or cr uel ag grav ating circu ms tanc e inap plicab le in murder-for-hire case where State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant knew or ordered the particu lar ma nner in wh ich the victim s were k illed); Arche r v. State , 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993) (holding that the heinous, atrocious or cr…

It is well established that for an issue involving the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal to be preserved for appeal, it “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of the presentation if it is to be considered preserved.” Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 33 (Fla.1985)) (emphasis added).

See Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2005) (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or grounds to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.” (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993))).

See Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2005) (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or grounds to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.’” (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446 , 448 9 Calfee’s claim about her supervisor’s alleged oral promise.

See Archer v. Winner v. Westwood, 237 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1970) (adopting rule 1.250 and incorporating reference to rule 1.420). 8 State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993) (holding that to preserve issue for appeal, issue “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation” (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985))).

See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, … it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’ ” (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993))). 2

See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, … it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’ ” (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993))). 2

See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, … it ‘must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.’ ” (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993))). 2

See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that an issue “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved”) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)).

See Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993).

See Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (holding that the independent act theory is inappropriate when the defendant created the situation and the victim’s death was a natural and foreseeable result of forces which the defendant set in motion).

See Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993).

See Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (holding that the independent act theory is inappropriate when the defendant created the situation and the victim’s death was a natural and foreseeable result of forces which the defendant set in motion).