Case Name: Danny SIMMONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-01-26
Citations: 891 So. 2d 627
Docket Number: No. 3D03-2099
Parties: Danny SIMMONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before GERSTEN and SUAREZ, JJ. and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 891
Pages: 627–627

Head Matter:
Danny SIMMONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D03-2099.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 26, 2005.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN and SUAREZ, JJ. and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Senior J.
Whether or not we agree with the opinion in Walker v. State, 853 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), review granted, 864 So.2d 401 (Fla.2004), that the standard jury instruction concerning the effect of a defendant's possession of recently stolen property may constitute a comment on the evidence, see Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292 (Fla.1992), we do not have occasion in this case either directly to so indicate, or, as in Walker, to certify the issue to the supreme court. This is because, although the defendant objected to the instruction below, his counsel did not raise the ground for that objection which is presently asserted. As the supreme court held in Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 950 (Fla.2004), the failure below specifically to make the claim that the instruction amounted to a judicial comment on the evidence precludes that issue from even being considered on appeal.
Affirmed.
. The objection which was raised was without merit and is not pressed on appeal.