Opinion ID: 2550043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preservation and Mootness

Text: The State initially claims that Del Valle did not properly preserve his objections and that the case is moot. These arguments have no merit. For an issue to be preserved for appeal ... it must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved. Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, harmful due process violations are fundamental error, which need not be preserved for review. See State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1993) ([F]or an error to be so fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal, the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process.); Wood v. State, 544 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla.1989) ([S]uch due process violations are fundamental error.). The State's mootness argument must also fail. Although we recognize that Del Valle's probation has already been terminated by the trial court, [i]t is well settled that mootness does not destroy an appellate court's jurisdiction ... when the questions raised are of great public importance or are likely to recur. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984). Here, as a direct result of the conflict among the districts, whether a probationer may be incarcerated due to indigence can be based solely on the probationer's geographic location. This conflict has already existed for too long and has escaped review for a number of years. Further, probation revocation hearings that flow from a probationer's failure to make ordered payments are common and thus are likely to recur. Accordingly, we will consider the questions of law presented here.