Keith Michael Alape v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 12, 2025
Docket6D2024-0519
StatusPublished

This text of Keith Michael Alape v. State of Florida (Keith Michael Alape v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keith Michael Alape v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-0519 Lower Tribunal No. 23-CF-014868 _____________________________

KEITH MICHAEL ALAPE,

Appellant, v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Christine H. Greider, Judge.

December 12, 2025

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Steiger v. State, 328 So. 3d 926, 932 (Fla. 2021) (“Based on

the plain text of section 924.051(3), [Florida Statutes,] an unpreserved error may

only be raised and result in reversal on direct appeal where the error is

fundamental.”); Knight v. State, 286 So. 3d 147, 151 (Fla. 2019) (“Jury instruction

errors are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule. In the absence of a

contemporaneous objection at trial, a jury instruction error is only subject to relief

in the event of fundamental error.” (citations omitted)); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d

285, 290 (Fla. 1993) (“Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of the case. Failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of

the crime charged is not fundamental error.” (citation omitted)); Mohammed v. State,

309 So. 3d 269, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“Sochor controls this case, and the trial

court could not fundamentally err by failing to instruct the jury on an unrequested

defense instruction.”); see generally State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 416 (Fla. 2012)

(explaining that section 893.101, Florida Statutes, “expressly eliminates knowledge

of the illicit nature of the controlled substance as an element of controlled substance

offenses and expressly creates an affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of the

illicit nature of the substance” but “does not eliminate the element of knowledge of

the presence of the substance”).

STARGEL, WOZNIAK and PRATT, JJ., concur.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Diana L. Johnson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

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

Related

Sochor v. State
619 So. 2d 285 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
State v. Adkins
96 So. 3d 412 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Keith Michael Alape v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-michael-alape-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2025.