C.S.V. v. State

Full title: C.S.V., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

Date published: Jul 19, 2023

No. 3D22-773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2023)

Opinion

3D22-773

07-19-2023

C.S.V., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

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.

HENDON, J.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 21-796A, 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 takes no position on the merits of such a motion, if filed. Affirmed without prejudice.