County Criminal Court: APPELLATE PROCEDURE – Preservation of Error –Defendant’s failure to make specific objection to breath test results precluded her from raising the issue on appeal. Arundel v. State, No. CRC 03-56 APANO (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. Dec. 1, 2004).

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

 

SHERRY ARUNDEL

 

            Appellant,

 

v.                                                                                                                                                                   Appeal No. CRC 03-56 APANO

                UCN522003AP000056XXXXCR

STATE OF FLORIDA

 

            Appellee.

____________________________/

 

Opinion filed _______________.

 

Appeal from a judgment and sentence

entered by the Pinellas County Court

County Judge Amy Williams

 

Robert Love, Esq.

Attorney for appellant

 

Joseph Werner, Esq.

Assistant State Attorney

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            (J. Morris)

 

            THIS MATTER is before the Court on Sherry Arundel’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court. She was convicted of DUI following a jury trial. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.

            Only one of the defendant’s claims has any merit. The defendant argues that the results of her breath test should not have been admitted into evidence because she was not under arrest for anything that related to her use of a motor vehicle, and therefore should not have been asked to take a breath test. This Court need not reach the merits of the appellant’s argument because it finds that the appellant failed to specifically object to the breath test results. A review of the record reveals that the appellant merely argued that the State had failed to lay a proper predicate or foundation. Nothing whatsoever was mentioned about the lack of a proper arrest. This is insufficient. The purpose of requiring a specific objection is to permit the trial court to understand the issue raised and to give the adverse party notice of the alleged defect. See Couzo v. State, 830 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Jackson v. State, 738 So.2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

            IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of November, 2004.

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                                David A. Demers

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                                Robert J. Morris, Jr.

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                                Irene S. Sullivan

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

cc:   State Attorney

 

        Judge Williams

 

        Robert Love, Esq.