been completed; and (6) the trial court’s denial of discovery requests for FDLE documents prevented a full and fair hearing. The arguments with regard to the allegedly improper conduct by the trial judge at the evidentiary hearing are all procedurally barred because there was no objection during the evidentiary hearing. To preserve error for appellate review, the general rule requires that a contemporaneous, specific objection occur at the time of the alleged error. See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla.2003); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982). There is no indication in the record that Overton ever objected or attempted to disqualify Judge Jones due to his alleged improper conduct during the evidentiary hearing. See Schwab v. State, 814 So.2d 402, 407 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). For example, when the trial judge first began
holding that claims not raised in a timely postconviction motion are waived holding that claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from consideration in a rule 3850 motion holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion holding that the judicial bias claim was procedurally barred due to the failure to file a motion to disqualify based upon the reasoning that where the grounds for a judicial bias claim are known at the time of the original trial yet are not raised such claims are waived and cannot be raised in a postconviction appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal