Case Name: Eddie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-01-05
Citations: 425 So. 2d 1163
Docket Number: No. 81-1437
Parties: Eddie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 425
Pages: 1163–1164

Head Matter:
Eddie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-1437.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 5, 1983.
George L. Winslow, Jr., Orlando, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DAUKSCH, Judge.
In a motion for rehearing the appellant very strongly suggests this court has shirked its duty and by issuance of a "PCA" failed to recognize that an important legal issue is involved in this case.
This is not so. The reason we affirmed the judgment without a written opinion is because all we could have said in the written opinion would be that the appellant failed to raise the alleged error at the trial court before raising it here and that the record before this court does not show the trial judge to have committed error. What good purpose would be served by our saying that? The appellee has pointed it out in its brief. Who would benefit by our publicly pointing to counsel's failure to raise his objection below, as he is bound to do? He has said in his brief that the question on appeal is a fundamental, jurisdictional error but the appellee has furnished us with a document which refutes the appellant's allegations. Thus, it was incumbent upon appellant to offer us record proof that his allegations are true.
The assertions of the appellant to the contrary notwithstanding, this court is ever vigilant for reversible error and ever mindful of its duty to protect the due process rights of all persons accused of crimes. There are certain standards we must apply in reviewing judgments. One of those is that the issues have to be squarely set out and substantiated by the record on appeal. This was not done here.
Finally, because appellant's allegations concern a lack of jurisdiction in the trial court the appellant may still obtain relief if he can prove his allegations in the trial court or substantiate them here. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850.
MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED.
COBB, J., concurs.
ORFINGER, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.