Chadrick Thompson appeals the judgment sentencing him to eight years in prison following his no contest pleas to charges of burglary, driving a car without the owner's consent, felony escape and two counts of battery. He argues that the probation officer who authored the presentence report violated his due process right to a fair sentencing procedure when she appended another presentence report prepared two years earlier. Because we conclude that this issue is not properly preserved for appeal, we affirm the judgments of conviction. In fact, he argued that the family background information contained in that document mitigated his offenses. Thompson's failure to make a timely objection constitutes a waiver of his right to have this issue reviewed.
Contemporaneous objection is required for several reasons.
It leads to finality in criminal litigation, encourages the parties to view the trial as an event of significance that should be kept as error free as possible, and places the issue before the court where society's resources have been concentrated. Here, the error, if any, is not a fundamental error and does not affect Thompson's constitutional rights. Even if that were true, the violation of this statute would not make the sentencing proceedings fundamentally unfair. None of the information contained in the 1994 PSI was untrue. The 1994 PSI could have been submitted upon order of the trial court.