Elma v. State

We affirm appellant’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling. Although appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient for him to be found a principal to burglary of a dwelling or of shooting into an occupied dwelling, this argument was not raised at trial. Instead, the defense argued the evidence was insufficient as to the identification of appellant. Thus, the argument made on appeal was not preserved in the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Callins v. State, 698 So.2d 888, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Cornwell v. State, 425 So.2d 1189, 1190…