State v. Matke
State v. Matke
761 So. 2d 317; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 484; 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1217; 2000 WL 766483
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
State v. Matke
Opinion of the Court
We have for review the decision in Matke v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D469, โ So.2d -, 1998 WL 55968 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 13, 1998), on the basis of certified conflict. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, ยง 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.