But, the defendant neither argued his constitutional rights under the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments in his motion nor at the hearing. Instead, both parties spent a significant amount of time arguing State v. Telucien , 225 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), at the hearing on the motion. For this reason, the defendant's constitutional argument was not preserved.
The writ of prohibition is denied on the merits. SeeState v. Telucien , 225 So.3d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; Wallace v. State , 189 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
The writ of prohibition is denied on the merits. See State v. Telucien, 225 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Wallace v. State, 189 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). BILBREY, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.