Smith v. State

Full title: ROGER JAMES SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Date published: Mar 24, 2016

188 So. 3d 911 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Opinion

No. 5D14–4029.

03-24-2016

Roger James SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Young v. State, 141 So.3d 161, 165 (Fla.2013) (holding sufficiency of the evidence claim was not reviewable for fundamental error on appeal where defendant waived appellate review on the specific issue of whether an uninhabitable building that had been undergoing renovation at the time of the break-in constituted a “dwelling” under the burglary statute, because defendant did not specifically argue at trial that the building was not a “dwelling” and the evidence established that, at the very least, defendant committed a burglary of a structure).

TORPY, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.