State v. Matke
761 So. 2d 317, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 484, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1217, 2000 WL 766483
Opinion
We have for review the decision in Matke v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D469, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 55968 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 13, 1998), on the basis of certified conflict. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000), we quash the decision below and find that the unpre-served sentencing error in this case regarding costs does not constitute fundamental error.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Matke, 761 So. 2d 317, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 484, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1217, 2000 WL 766483 (Fla. 2000).
761 So. 2d 317 (State v. Matke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Maddox v. State
760 So. 2d 89 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Matke v. State
765 So. 2d 52 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)