Wright v. State
760 So. 2d 146, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 483, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1224, 2000 WL 766501
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wright v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 810 So. 2d 873 →
Opinion
We have for review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal certifying the following question to be one of great public importance:
DOES THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ORALLY PRONOUNCE EACH STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED COST INDIVIDUALLY AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR?
Wright v. State, 720 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). 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 answer the certified question in the negative. We approve the decision below and find that the unpreserved sentencing errors asserted in this case do not constitute fundamental error.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wright v. State, 760 So. 2d 146, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 483, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1224, 2000 WL 766501 (Fla. 2000).
760 So. 2d 146 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wright v. State
720 So. 2d 313 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Maddox v. State
760 So. 2d 89 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)