Case ID: so2d_599/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis M. ACOSTA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-3025.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 9, 1992.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Rosa C. Figarola, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Roberta G. Mandel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine. Defendant did not preserve for review the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial, see Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133 (Fla.1991), or its failure to give the agreed upon cautionary instruction. Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Crespo v. State, 505 So.2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Furthermore, the record does not disclose that the prosecutor’s question constituted fundamental error. See Woodard v. State, 579 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Affirmed.