Cases from cite.case.law:

RIVERA, v. STATE, 274 So. 3d 537 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Id. at 1242-43 (quoting § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002) ). . . .

MILLIRON, v. STATE, 274 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . the need of the parties and the trial court to recognize the appellate limitations set out in section 924.051 . . . appeal an issue after a no-contest or guilty plea if the issue is expressly reserved and dispositive. § 924.051 . . . ."); § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. . . . .. a legally dispositive issue that was expressly reserved for appellate review pursuant to section 924.051 . . . (4)," the district court "should affirm summarily" rather than dismiss because section 924.051(4) "is . . .

OSBORNE, v. STATE, 273 So. 3d 281 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) ; see also § 924.051(4), Fla. . . .

CHARLES, v. STATE, 258 So. 3d 549 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; Cherisma v. State, 86 So.3d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). . . .

BAUGH, v. STATE, 253 So. 3d 761 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2015) ; Sparks v. . . .

TWIGG, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 464 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 924.051(2), Florida Statutes (2017), states that "[t]he right to direct appeal ... may only be . . . implemented in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this section," and section 924.051 . . .

STATE v. GRATE, 252 So. 3d 351 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Accord § 924.051(9), Fla. . . .

TENNYSON, v. STATE, 254 So. 3d 510 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 924.051(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

DORTCH, v. STATE, 242 So. 3d 431 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (2016), states, "If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly . . .

FOSTER, v. STATE, 232 So. 3d 512 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (2016), states that “if a defendant pleads guilty without expressly . . .

RUSS, DOC v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 924.051(4) (2015); Leonard v. . . .

STATE v. RICHARDVILLE,, 216 So. 3d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. . . . and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.... ”); § 924.051 . . .

ROBINSON, v. STATE, 215 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . .” § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. . . . .” § 924.051(l)(b) Fla. Stat., (Supp. 1996); see Latson v. . . .

PORTILLO, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . State, 126 So.3d 281, 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (internal quotations omitted); see also § 924.051(1)(b), . . .

STATE v. WILEY,, 210 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2017)

. . . Similarly, section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken from . . . And section 924.051(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2014), explains that “ ‘[preserved’ means that an issue, . . .

L. ROBINSON, v. STATE, 202 So. 3d 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. . . .

NEWSOME, v. STATE, 199 So. 3d 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .”); § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

LATSON, v. STATE, 193 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Appellate review in criminal cases Section 924.051(2), Florida Statutes, provides that the right to direct . . . Section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits an appeal in a criminal case unless the claimed error . . . Barber that ineffective-assistance claims could not be raised on direct appeal. - Perhaps- section 924.051 . . . issue “because to do so would effectively nullify the preservation requirement contained in section 924.051 . . . But the proscriptions of section 924.051 have slowly disappeared from the case law in this area, and . . .

E. H. a v. STATE, 170 So. 3d 957 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Morris, 721 So.2d at 727; see also § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (defining “preserved”). . . .

GUN, v. STATE, 171 So. 3d 184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . 1100, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“An issue or objection is ‘preserved’ within the meaning of [section 924.051 . . .

J. CONNOLLY, Jr. v. STATE, 172 So. 3d 893 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . State, 751 So.2d 537, 544 (Fla.1999))); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. . . .

STATE v. MURRAY,, 161 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2013). See also Harrell v. . . .

BERUBE, v. STATE, 149 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 924.051(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002); Sampson v. . . .

MURPHY, v. STATE, 149 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See also § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. . . .

GARRETT, v. STATE, 148 So. 3d 466 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

GONZALEZ, v. STATE, 143 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 924.051(3) of the Florida Statutes (2013) provides: An appeal may not be taken from a judgment . . . Section 924.051(l)(b) further clarifies the issue by defining the term “preserved” to mean that “an issue . . .

MONTES- VALETON, v. STATE, 141 So. 3d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). The evidence code also requires precision in objections. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, v. CORCORAN,, 133 So. 3d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See §§ 924.051(7), 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1999); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999). . . .

STATE v. CURRILLY,, 126 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 924.051(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2011) (emphasis added); see also Harrell v. . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. STATE, 120 So. 3d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. . . .

RUILOVA, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (2008), provides: “If a defendant pleads nolo conten-dere without . . .

DANIELS, v. STATE, 121 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2013)

. . . State, 64 So.3d 1232, 1242 (Fla.2011) (citing Harrell, 894 So.2d at 940); see also § 924.051(l)(b), Fla . . .

TRUETT, v. STATE, 105 So. 3d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . DCA 2006), which, in turn, quoted from the statutory definition of ‘preserved’ set forth in section 924.051 . . .

WALLING, v. STATE, 105 So. 3d 660 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993); § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

LEBRON, v. STATE Of, 127 So. 3d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . State, 64 So.3d 1232, 1242 (Fla.2011) (quoting § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. . . .

STATE v. NEWMAN,, 104 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 924.051(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 99 So. 3d 593 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 924.051(9), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

PEREZ- SOVIAS, v. STATE, 95 So. 3d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . fundamental error by its nature is harmful, it is not subject to a harmless error review); see also § 924.051 . . .

HAMPTON, v. STATE, 103 So. 3d 98 (Fla. 2012)

. . . See § 924.051(l)(b) & (3), Fla. . . . See § 924.051(l)(b) & (8) (explaining that, in the absence of fundamental error, appeal may not be taken . . .

BUTLER, v. STATE, 95 So. 3d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 924.051(8), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added). See also O’Brien v. . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 93 So. 3d 395 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . (citing § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006), and Philip J. . . .

HOLDEN, Jr. v. STATE, 90 So. 3d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .. a legally dispositive issue that was expressly reserved for appellate review pursuant to section 924.051 . . .

CHERISMA, v. STATE, 86 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005); see also Harrell v. . . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); State v. Roberts, 963 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). . . .

D. M. v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . . §§ 985.534(1), 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2009); Fla. R.App. P. 9.145(b)(1). . . .

HALL, v. STATE, 92 So. 3d 223 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

TARTARINI, v. STATE, 84 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 81 So. 3d 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See §§ 924.051(4), 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2010); Fla.R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A). APPEAL DISMISSED. . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 71 So. 3d 173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 924.051(1)(b), Florida Statutes, defines the preservation requirement as follows: “ ‘Preserved . . . resentencing hearing is reviewed de novo, that the non-constitutional ground was not preserved — under section 924.051 . . .

D. J. P. JR. v. STATE, 67 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Similarly, section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (2007), likewise provides: “If a defendant pleads nolo . . . from a guilty or nolo contendere plea does not present an issue preserved in accordance with section 924.051 . . .

O. BAKER, v. STATE, 71 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 2011)

. . . State, 986 So.2d 501, 513 (Fla.2008) (citation omitted) (citing § 924.051(1)(b), (3), Fla. . . .

CORONA, v. STATE, 64 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011)

. . . Section 924.051, Florida Statutes (2002), outlines the “[t]erms and conditions of appeals and collateral . . . Specifically, section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (2002), states in part, “An appeal may not be taken . . . sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.” § 924.051 . . . hearsay objection “fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.” § 924.051 . . .

GARCIA, v. STATE, 47 So. 3d 905 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . claim of error which was properly preserved in the trial court, usually by stating an objection, see § 924.051 . . .

FRAMES, v. STATE, 33 So. 3d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. (2009). MONACO, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . . .

J. THOMPSON, v. STATE, 36 So. 3d 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . .’ § 924.051(8), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added).”). . . .

ARMSTRONG, v. STATE, 46 So. 3d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2008); Morrison v. . . .

W. McWATTERS, v. STATE, 36 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See § 924.051, Fla. . . .

CAMPO, v. STATE, 24 So. 3d 735 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . .” § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

SHOOTES, v. STATE, 20 So. 3d 434 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . . § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat.; see also White v. Consol. . . .

WOODSON, v. STATE, 9 So. 3d 716 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2007); Insko v. . . .

BAKER, Jr. v. STATE, 4 So. 3d 758 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . State, 314 So.2d 134 (Fla.1975)); § 924.051(3), Fla. . . .

FLEITAS, v. STATE, 3 So. 3d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

JONES, v. STATE v. A., 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008)

. . . State, 986 So.2d 501, 513 (Fla.2008), modified 986 So.2d 560 (Fla.2008) (citing § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. . . .

ESQUIVEL, v. STATE, 995 So. 2d 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . are either procedurally barred because they could have been or were raised on direct appeal, see § 924.051 . . .

C. E. L. v. STATE, 995 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 924.051(1), (3), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

CONNER, v. STATE, 987 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Ayers, 901 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003)). . . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. . . .

STATE v. JOHNSON,, 990 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . .” § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). The prosecutor never mentioned the sentencing guidelines. . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)

. . . enacted the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 (the Act) which, among other things, created section 924.051 . . . Maddox, 760 So.2d at 95 (quoting § 924.051(8), Fla. Stat. . . . properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. § 924.051 . . .

KIDD, v. STATE, 978 So. 2d 868 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . After the passage of section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), governing the terms and conditions . . . ineffective assistance claim not properly raised on direct appeal in light of enactment of section 924.051 . . . this court would not reach question of continued viability of Gordon, in light of passage of section 924.051 . . .

PEREZ, v. STATE, 980 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2007); Knowles v. State, 848 So.2d 1055 (Fla.2003); State v. . . .

W. RHODES, v. STATE, 986 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2008)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 924.051(l)(b); see also Philip J. . . .

COX, v. STATE, 975 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 924.051(7), Fla. Stat. (2006); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 544 (Fla.1999); Woods v. . . . See § 924.051(1)(b) & (3), Fla. Stat. (2006); Reynolds v. . . .

STATE v. WARD,, 973 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Ayers, 901 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003)). . . .

LOVE, v. STATE, 971 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

WALKER, Jr. v. STATE, 988 So. 2d 6 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 (CARA), chapter 96-248, section 4, Laws of Florida, codified at section 924.051 . . .

VANN, v. STATE, 970 So. 2d 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . preserve the issue as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(d) and section 924.051 . . . Section 924.051 (the Criminal Appeal Reform Act) took effect July 1, 1996. . . .

STATE v. COLBERT,, 968 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that a “judgment or sentence may be reversed on . . . precise that it fairly appraised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefore.” § 924.051 . . . See § 924.051(3),. Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . .” § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 968 So. 2d 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . .” § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006); Williams v. . . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

CLINTON, v. STATE, 970 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

RODAS, v. STATE, 967 So. 2d 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2006); Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla.2002). . . .

STATE v. JIMENEZ- PORRAS,, 974 So. 2d 422 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Ayers, 901 So.2d at 944 (quoting in part section 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat.). . . .

MORA, v. STATE, 964 So. 2d 881 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . preserved for review and does not show fundamental error on the part of the sentencing court); see also § 924.051 . . .

I. R. C. v. STATE, 968 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); § 924.051(1)(b). . . . court” of the “grounds” asserted by the defendant as establishing the involuntariness of the consent. § 924.051 . . .

STATE v. ROBERTS,, 963 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . I would affirm the judgment and sentence on authority of paragraph 924.051(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2006 . . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . .” § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

HADNOT, v. STATE, 956 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . State, 828 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. . . .

SIBLEY, v. STATE, 955 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Sibley’s Alleged Failure to Preserve his Double Jeopardy Claim The State argues, pursuant to section 924.051 . . . Both section 924.051(4) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) provide a means to . . .

ELWELL, v. STATE, 954 So. 2d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . General Requirements Regarding Preservation of Error Section 924.051, Florida Statutes (2003), which . . . sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.” § 924.051 . . . We also note that Hopkins was decided prior to the adoption of section 924.051, with its exacting requirements . . .

REYES, v. STATE, 952 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Analysis Section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (2004), provides: An appeal may not be taken from a judgment . . . Section 924.051(l)(b) provides: “Preserved” means that an issue, legal argument, or objection to evidence . . . See § 924.051(3); Perez v. . . .

ECHEVERRIA, v. STATE, 949 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 924.051(l)(b), Florida Statutes, indicates that an argument is “preserved” when it “was timely . . .

A. COTHRON, v. STATE, 946 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, 924.051, Fla. . . .

GRIFFIN, v. STATE, 946 So. 2d 610 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . enforced ... to ensure that all claims of error are raised and resolved at the first opportunity,” see § 924.051 . . .

E. LONGLEY, v. STATE, 944 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, § 924.051, Fla. . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 944 So. 2d 546 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2004); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b). . . .

WALSH, v. STATE, 942 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Florida Statutes section 924.051(4) states: If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving . . .

BURGOS, v. STATE, 939 So. 2d 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 924.051(4) & —.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

LANGDON, v. STATE, 947 So. 2d 460 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . §§ 59.041, 924.051(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

MANN, v. STATE, 937 So. 2d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . First, section 924.051(9), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: “Funds, resources, or employees of this . . . 1153 (Fla.1998)(holding that when counsel is constitutionally mandated under Weeks and Graham, section 924.051 . . . While section 924.051(9) prohibits the use of funds, resources, or employees in collateral proceedings . . . See § 924.051(9), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

SHUMAN, v. STATE, 939 So. 2d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 924.051(4) & -.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(c)(4). . . .

J. CLARK, v. STATE, 935 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See also § 924.051(4), Fla. . . .

HUFFMAN, Jr. v. STATE, 937 So. 2d 202 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 924.051(4) & .06(3), Fla. Stat. (2004); State v. . . . Huffman has the burden to demonstrate prejudicial error pursuant to section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes . . .

VALENCIA, v. STATE, 937 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2005); Knowles v. State, 848 So.2d 1055 (Fla.2003); Goodwin v. . . .