post-conviction relief. An adverse ruling on either motion is renewable on appeal. We quash Thompson and approve Rhodes on this issue. We also approve the result in Williams. We remand the present case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and without prejudice to Thompson’s right to raise this issue in the trial court via postconviction motion. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OVERTON and KOGAN, Senior Justices, concur. WELLS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result only. 1 . The Court subsequently found that the second Ashley requirement had not been met in State v. Wilson, 658 So.2d 521 (Fla.1995), but did not decide whether the issue must be preserved at the trial level. 2 . Ashley, 614 So.2d at 490 (<HOLDING>). 3 . See also Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b), which
holding that preplea notice of habitualization is clearly a legal matter involving no factual determination and thus no contemporaneous objection is required to preserve this issue holding that the objection both instructions fit this case and should be given is inadequate to preserve issue holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required holding timely and sufficiently specific objection is required to preserve error holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review