2024-3131•Joe N. Byers v. State of Florida
Gesamter Gesetzestext
FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2024-3131 _____________________________ J OE N. B YERS, Appellant, v. S TATE OF F LORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Melissa G. Olin, Judge. February 18, 2026 P ER C URIAM. Joe N. Byers appeals the revocation of his probation, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish multiple violations of his electronic-monitoring condition and that the violations, even if established, were not willful and substantial. Because Byers did not raise his first argument below, it is unpreserved, and we decline to address it. See State v. Clark, 373 So. 3d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 2023) (“Parties are required to preserve arguments because it allows the lower tribunal to consider and resolve errors when they arise, rather than wait for the process of an appeal and expend the judicial resources that come with that procedure.”). Finding no merit in Byers’s remaining argument, we affirm.
2 A FFIRMED. R OWE, R AY, and L ONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jessica Kasey Helms Lacey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D2024-3131 JOE N. BYERS, Appellant, Vv. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Melissa G. Olin, Judge. February 18, 2026 PER CURIAM. Joe N. Byers appeals the revocation of his probation, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish multiple violations of his electronic-monitoring condition and that the violations, even if established, were not willful and substantial. Because Byers did not raise his first argument below, it is unpreserved, and we decline to address it. See State v. Clark, 373 So. 3d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 2023) (“Parties are required to preserve arguments because it allows the lower tribunal to consider and resolve errors when they arise, rather than wait for the process of an appeal and expend the judicial resources that come with that procedure.”). Finding no merit in Byers’s remaining argument, we affirm. AFFIRMED. ROWE, RAY, and LONG, JJ., concur. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jessica Kasey Helms Lacey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.