Case ID: so3d_87/html/1290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. MAKAR, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steven Allen MATTISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D11-1950.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 1, 2012.
    Katharine B. Heyward, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF and RAY, JJ., concur.

MAKAR, J., concurs With Opinion.

MAKAR, J.,

concurring.

While I concur in affirmance, I note that the prosecutor’s arguments to the jury raise a number of significant concerns that might otherwise result in reversal but for the lack of full and timely objections. The totality of these arguments, which push fundamental error analysis to the brink, unnecessarily injected potential legal error in this case for no valid purpose. Affir-mance in this case does not condone the arguments at issue; it is required only because the fundamental error threshold was ascended but not reached.