McCALISTER v. STATE, 682 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1996)

Otis McCALISTER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 87238.Supreme Court of Florida.
November 7, 1996.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions Third District — Case No. 93-1945 (Dade County).

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review McCalister v. State, 664 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Montague v. State, 656 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We recently quashed the decision in Montague and held that a contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve a Karchesky
error for appellate review. State v. Montague, 682 So.2d 1085
(Fla. 1996). Therefore, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.