STEPHEN J. KLARICH, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
STEPHEN J. KLARICH, JR., PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
760 So. 2d 150
Florida Supreme Court (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Klarich v. State, 730 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal that cited as controlling authority Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000), we approve the decision below and find that the unpreserved sentencing errors in this case do not constitute fundamental error. It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tross Britt v. State, 775 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…herefore, it has not been preserved. It does not constitute fundamental error, which may be raised for the first time on appeal. E.g., Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 104-05 (Fla.2000); Klarich v. State, 730 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, 760 So. 2d 150 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we will not address the merits of the issue challenging the inclusion in the written order of certain conditions of community control that were not orally pronounced. Appellant next challenges as unconstitutionally vague t…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Klarich v. State, 730 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)