Thomas v. State, 81-1538
| Decision Date | 05 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1538,81-1538 |
| Citation | 424 So.2d 193 |
| Parties | Winzer Leon THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Cynthia Karl-Stamm, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Michael Barnette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction in a burglary case. The question appellant asks for us to decide is an interesting one: can a witness' credibility be impeached by eliciting testimony from him, or otherwise proving, that he had once pleaded guilty to a crime although adjudication of guilt had been withheld and he had been put on probation. Or, can the word "conviction" mean a finding of guilt, without an adjudication? It is without question that an adjudication of guilt would be a "conviction." But can "conviction" also mean an order placing a person on probation?
As interesting as the question is and as much as we may want to discuss and decide it we cannot because the record reflects the appellant failed to preserve the alleged error by making a timely objection. Appellant did file a motion in limine to have the court prevent the prosecutor from bringing out the fact that he had entered a plea of guilty and had been put on probation in another case. But at trial, appellant failed to object to the introduction of testimony regarding the entry of the plea so he failed to preserve the alleged error for our review. Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company, 404 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Crespo v. State, 379 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1981).
Appellant also complains about the court permitting the prosecutor to ask him during cross-examination about the nature of the charges to which he had pleaded guilty. A general objection to that question was made but no specific objection, setting out the grounds for the objection, was presented to the court so, again, appellant failed to preserve the alleged error for the record and our review. In order for us to fault a trial judge and overturn a judgment it must be shown that a specific and proper objection to the alleged inadmissible evidence is made and ruled upon, unless the error is "fundamental error." Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); Hufham v. State, 400 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v. State
...DCA 1989); Woodson v. State, 483 So.2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Gilling v. State, 443 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Thomas v. State, 424 So.2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).8 Lowe's of Tallahassee v. Giaimo, 552 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Saul v. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundatio......
-
Merritt v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., CASE NO: 8:11-cv-2501-T-30MAP
...to not receiving all evidence against him. No procedural or legal arguments were noted at the final hearing. See Thomas v. State, 424 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (holding that where no objection is made to an alleged error, the alleged error is not preserved for review). Therefore, t......
-
Peterson v. State, 93-1838
...maintain that his motion in limine was sufficient to preserve for review an objection to the actual questions asked. Thomas v. State, 424 So.2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Compare Hall v. Oakley, 409 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1982), disapproved on other grounds,......
-
Guthrie v. State, 92-04232
...a motion in limine because an objection must also be made at the time a party is trying to introduce the evidence. Thomas v. State, 424 So.2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). When the appellant did not object to the introduction of the evidence at trial, his objection was We, accordingly, affirm th......