Court Opinion

ID: 9661021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:26:36.800666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:33.817145
License: Public Domain

CANADY, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of Orme’s death sentence. Except for the matters discussed below, I agree with the analysis in the per curiam opinion.
With respect to Orme’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to permit a for-cause challenge to prospective jurors who refused to consider remorse as a mitigating factor, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the claim was not preserved. I would reject the issue on that basis and refrain from reaching its merits.
With respect to the claim that the trial court failed to consider Orme’s remorse as a mitigator, I would reject the claim on the basis that it was not preserved. Orme never did anything to bring the supposed *554deficiency in the sentencing order to the attention of the trial court. Accordingly, the issue is unpreserved. See Blackwelder v. State, 851 So.2d 650, 652 (Fla.2003); Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 611 (Fla.2000).
POLSTON, J., concurs.