760 So. 2d 143 - Johnson v. State

PER CURIAM.

¶1We 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 PRO*144NOUNCE EACH STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED COST INDIVIDUALLY AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR?

¶2Johnson v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1192, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 303402 (Fla. 1st DCA May 14, 1999). 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.1

¶3It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

¶4. We decline to address the other issues raised by Johnson that are not the basis of our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592, 595 n. 3 (Fla. 1999); McMullen v. State, 714 So.2d 368, 373 (Fla.1998).