Pinder v. State, 79-1888
| Decision Date | 07 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1888,79-1888 |
| Citation | 396 So.2d 272 |
| Parties | Harrison PINDER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Mark King Leban, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.
The only point presented on this appeal from an aggravated assault conviction is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the three-year minimum mandatory sentence required by Section 775.087(2) Fla.Stat. (1979) because the crime was committed with a "firearm." The defendant contends that the only evidence on the issue 1 the victim's testimony that the defendant was carrying what she described as a "handgun" or a "revolver-type of gun" did not justify the determination that the instrument in question was in fact a "firearm," as defined in Section 790.001(6) Fla.Stat. (1979) rather than a toy pistol. See, Miles v. State, 338 So.2d 547 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We are unable to reach the merits of this question because the issue was not properly preserved for review by any objection or motion which asserted this particularized contention below. 2 De La Cova v. State, 355 So.2d 1227 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 831 (Fla.1978), and cases cited. This rule is applicable and controlling in this case because of the real possibility that if the claim had been brought to the attention of the court and the prosecution, it might well have been obviated by the introduction of additional testimony as, for example, by the victim's answer to a single specific question as to whether the implement in Pinder's hand was or was not a toy. We will not reverse on the basis of an initial appellate assertion of alleged error which even may have been cured 3 if advanced at the time of trial. See, Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So.2d 1259, 1266-67 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), review denied, 397 So.2d 778 (Fla.1981).
Affirmed.
1 The "gun" itself was never recovered.
2 The defense did contend that the evidence did not show that the gun was "capable of firing a projectile." Under Sec. 790.001(6), however, which defines a firearm as including even the frame or receiver of such a weapon, no such showing is necessary. Machado v. State, 363 So.2d 1132 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla.1979).
3 By the very "act" of not objecting, the party who does not properly preserve error below necessarily takes his chances as to whether there was in fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc.
...example of a consideration of a claim of fundamental error that is consistent with supreme court precedent is found in Pinder v. State, 396 So.2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), where the court "We are unable to reach the merits of this question because the issue was not properly preserved for revi......
-
Williams v. State
...are presented in such an instance. Compare, e. g., Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 107-109 (Fla.1974) with, e. g., Pinder v. State, 396 So.2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).6 We distinguish, as inapplicable to the present situation, the cases which find fundamental error when the instructions compl......
-
DeFreitas v. State
...despite the lack of objection. Id. 98 So. at 612; see Pacifico v. State, 642 So.2d 1178, 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Pinder v. State, 396 So.2d 272, 273 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Admittedly, the concept of "fundamental error" is a difficult one to define, partially because of the courts' unwil......
-
North Miami General Hosp., Inc. v. Goldberg
...side would then have a fair opportunity to correct or reopen its case to meet them. See Wagner, 464 So.2d at 166; Pinder v. State, 396 So.2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In this instance, nothing the plaintiff could have done in response to the motion for directed verdict could have made any dif......
-
Unpreserved issues in criminal appeals.
...J., concurring specially). (35) Murphy, 766 So. 2d at 1016-17; State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 1984); Pinder v. State, 396 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (36) See Rhoden, 448 So. 2d at 1016; Williams, 516 So. 2d at 976. (37) Maddox, 760 So. 2d at 94, 98. Richard J. Sanders han......