Adside v. State

767 So. 2d 1187, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 690, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1829, 2000 WL 1288727
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided September 14, 2000·No. No. SC94752·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Adside v. State, 722 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), which is in [1188] express and direct conflict with Dodson v. State, 710 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), on the issue of whether an appellate court may correct an unpreserved error relating to the imposition of court costs and a public defender lien. The Court has jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Consistent with our decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000), we determine that Adside’s unpreserved claims relating to court costs and public defender lien do not rise to the level of fundamental error which may be reviewed for the first time on direct appeal. Further, based on our decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), we quash the district court’s affirmance of Adside’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect on the date of the offense.1

It is so ordered.

SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adside v. State, 767 So. 2d 1187, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 690, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1829, 2000 WL 1288727 (Fla. 2000).

767 So. 2d 1187 (Adside v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ware v. State
799 So. 2d 1099 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)