Skip to main content

Lacey v. State

Citations

  • 831 So. 2d 1267
  • 2002 WL 31828714

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • refusing to consider claim that alleged violation was reversible as it was predicated solely upon hearsay where such argument was not advanced below
  • stating that the law is clear that in order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation
  • appellant’s argument that the VOP was based exclusively on hearsay testimony was not preserved because the argument was not raised with the trial court
  • “This puts a cap on what the judge may sentence, but in no way indicates that there is no discretion.”
  • “[I]n order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Polen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.