CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432, 446 (Fla.2002) (“In order to preserve the issue for appellate review, a party must have made the same argument to the trial court that it raises on appeal.”). Compare Richardson v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Moore, 742 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ.,
holding no evidentiary hearing was required where the affidavits of the defendant and his wife were directly contradicted by the defendants sworn testimony during the plea hearing holding that because richardsons sworn response to the commissioners report and his sworn motion for rehearing sufficiently raised an issue of fact as to whether he received notice of the august 5 hearing on a petition to vacate a paternity judgment and reimburse a tax refund that had been divested to pay child support the trial court was obligated to resolve the issue only after an evidentiary hearing holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court