Peraza v. State

In his appeal of his conviction and sentence, appellant, Israel Peraza, makes five claims, three of which were not preserved by a proper objection at trial and thus are not preserved for review, nor are they fundamental error. See McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla.1999)(failure to object to prosecutor’s comment in closing'argument); Archer v. State, 673 So.2d 17, 20 (Fla.1996) (failure to object to jury instruction); Nichols v. State, 721 So.2d 807, 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(failure to object to court’s questioning of eyewitness).

Appellant also alleged that the trial court erred in…