KEITH MICHAEL ALAPE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court does not commit fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on an unrequested defense instruction, even in controlled substance cases where lack of knowledge of the illicit nature is an affirmative defense.
[1] A trial court does not commit fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on an unrequested affirmative defense, as fundamental error must go to the foundation of t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of the case. Failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental error.”
Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993), cited for the standard defining fundamental error in jury instruction cases.
Keith Michael Alape appealed his conviction in a controlled substance case from the Circuit Court for Lee County. The appeal challenged the trial cour…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Controlled Substance Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-0519 Lower Tribunal No. 23-CF-014868 _____________________________
KEITH MICHAEL ALAPE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Christine H. Greider, Judge.
December 12, 2025
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Steiger v. State, 328 So. 3d 926, 932 (Fla. 2021) (“Based on the plain text of section 924.051(3), [Florida Statutes,] an unpreserved error may only be raised and result in reversal on direct appeal where the error is fundamental.”); Knight v. State, 286 So. 3d 147, 151 (Fla. 2019) (“Jury instruction errors are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule. In the absence of a contemporaneous objection at trial, a jury instruction error is only subject to relief in the event of fundamental error.” (citations omitted)); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993) (“Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of
2
the case. Failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental error.” (citation omitted)); Mohammed v. State, 309 So. 3d 269, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“Sochor controls this case, and the trial court could not fundamentally err by failing to instruct the jury on an unrequested defense instruction.”); see generally State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 416 (Fla. 2012) (explaining that section 893.101, Florida Statutes, “expressly eliminates knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance as an element of controlled substance offenses and expressly creates an affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance” but “does not eliminate the element of knowledge of the presence of the substance”). STARGEL, WOZNIAK and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Diana L. Johnson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012)
- Knight v. State, 286 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2019)
- Mohammed v. State, 309 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)