Court Opinion

ID: 9409742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 14:04:33.322368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.444842
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed July 19, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-773
                        Lower Tribunal No. 21-796A
                           ________________

                           C.S.V., a juvenile,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                          The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Orlando A.
Prescott, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Special
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ.

     HENDON, J.
      C.S.V., a juvenile, appeals from a final order adjudicating him

delinquent for possession of a firearm by a minor (Count 1), resisting an

officer without violence (Count 2), and carrying a concealed firearm (Count

3), and from the disposition order. As the specific issue raised on appeal

was not preserved for appellate review, we affirm as set forth herein.

      C.S.V. contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to

suppress the firearm found in his backpack, and therefore, this Court

should reverse and remand with directions to discharge him on Count 1

(possession of a firearm by a minor) and Count 3 (carrying a concealed

firearm).   In making this argument, C.S.V. asserts that the warrantless

search of his backpack exceeded the scope of a search incident to arrest

because the search occurred when the police officer had exclusive control

of the backpack and while he (C.S.V.) was sitting handcuffed in the back of

a police vehicle.

      This particular argument was not preserved for appellate review. See

Hall v. State, 92 So. 3d 223, 225-26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Rhodes

v. State, 986 So. 2d 501, 513 (Fla. 2008)) (“To be preserved, the issue or

legal argument must be raised and ruled on by the trial court.”) (italics in

original). As such, we affirm without prejudice to allow C.S.V. to file a

timely and appropriate motion for postconviction relief. However, this Court

                                     2
takes no position on the merits of such a motion, if filed.

      Affirmed without prejudice.

                                       3