Keith Michael Alape v. State of Florida
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.