claim, but simply Nova’s explanation why relief on the primary claim was not sought in the prior trial and appellate proceedings. Since we decide, infra, that Nova’s primary contention raises a fundamental error which, having never been ruled upon, may be considered under a 3.850 motion even though not raised in a direct appeal, Nova’s fall-back contentions concerning the ineffectiveness of his counsel need not be reached. III As we have stated, a fundamental error may be raised for the first time in a Rule 3.850 motion notwithstanding that it could have been, but was not, raised on direct appeal. O’Neal v. State, 308 So.2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), overruled on other grounds, Roberts v. State, 320 So.2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); see also Dozier v. State, 361 So.2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (<HOLDING>); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA
holding that a fundamental error may be collaterally attacked but incorrectly holding that a comment on defendants right to remain silent is a fundamental error clark v state 363 so2d 331 fla1978 holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error recognizing plain or fundamental error holding right to be fundamental