Case Name: Daniel BAILEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-01-13
Citations: 393 So. 2d 24
Docket Number: No. 80-235
Parties: Daniel BAILEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, C. J., SCHWARTZ, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 393
Pages: 24–25

Head Matter:
Daniel BAILEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 80-235.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 13, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1981.
Stephen Jay Kogan, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C. J., SCHWARTZ, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant's challenge to the warrant-less electronic surveillance involved in this case is rejected on the authority of Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 636 (Fla.1980). See, Jacobs v. State, 389 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Steinbrecher, 389 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Shaktman, 389 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Trinidad v. State, 388 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
The claim that the trial court erroneously declined to instruct the jury as to the maximum sentences, see, Tascano v. State, 393 § So.2d 540 (Fla.1980), was not properly preserved for appellate review. In so holding, we follow Kelly v. State, 389 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) which involved an identical procedural situation and which we believe to have been correctly decided. See also, e. g., Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367 (1947); Smith v. State, 378 So.2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); White v. State, 324 So.2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 339 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1976). The other points raised present no error and require no discussion.
Affirmed.