Klarich v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Klarich v. State

760 So. 2d 150, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 484, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1229, 2000 WL 766599

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 15, 2000·No. No. SC95705·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Klarich v. State, 760 So. 2d 150, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 484, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1229, 2000 WL 766599 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

760 So. 2d 150 (Klarich v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related