Case Name: Jose Antonio PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-10-16
Citations: 680 So. 2d 1142
Docket Number: No. 96-775
Parties: Jose Antonio PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and FLETCHER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 680
Pages: 1142–1143

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-775.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 16, 1996.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Louis Campbell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Fredericka Sands, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and FLETCHER, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jose Antonio Perez appeals his conviction for burglary with an assault or battery. With regard to the claim under Clewis v. State, 605 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), we conclude that the defense objection was not sufficiently specific to alert the trial judge to the nature of the objection, as contrasted to the objection made in Clewis. See id. at 975. "In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court." Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla.1987), citing Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); Mingo v. State, 680 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Black v. State, 367 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla.1979). Additionally, taking the closing argument as a whole, we do not think that there is a reasonable basis on which to conclude that the jury was misled.
We find no error in the remaining points on appeal.
Affirmed.