Adside v. State
Adside v. State
Opinion of the Court
We have for review Adside v. State, 722 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), which is in
Consistent with our decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000), we determine that Adside’s unpreserved claims relating to court costs and public defender lien do not rise to the level of fundamental error which may be reviewed for the first time on direct appeal. Further, based on our decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000), we quash the district court’s affirmance of Adside’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect on the date of the offense.
It is so ordered.
. Adside has standing to challenge chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, on single subject rule grounds. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2000).
Concurring in Part
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with that portion of the decision controlled by Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000). I dissent as to that portion controlled by Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000), for the reasons stated in my dissent in that case.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Derek ADSIDE v. STATE of Florida
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published