Alvarado v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alvarado v. State

992 So. 2d 276, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13429, 2008 WL 4057518

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 2008

DocketNo. 2D06-3874

StatusPublished

This text of 992 So. 2d 276 (Alvarado v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvarado v. State, 992 So. 2d 276, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13429, 2008 WL 4057518 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Nicholas Alvarado seeks review of the trial court’s orders denying his motion for postconviction relief, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Alvarado filed a motion and amendment raising a total of eleven claims. The postconviction court summarily denied seven of these claims and denied four claims after a hearing. We affirm the denial of Alvarado’s claims with the exception of a portion of claim one, which it appears the postconviction court failed to consider. We reverse and remand for consideration of this claim only.

In claim one, Alvarado asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to various improper jury instructions. As part of this claim, Alvarado argued that the instruction on sale of methamphetamine omitted the “guilty knowledge” element. It does not appear that the court addressed this specific part of claim one. Our review of the jury instructions confirms Alvarado’s assertion that the sale instruction did not contain an instruction regarding the “guilty knowledge” element. This element, which requires proof that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a substance, was an element of the crime under the statute that was in effect when the underlying offense was committed. See Balmori v. State, 985 So.2d 646, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to consider this part of claim one.

[277]*277Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STRINGER, Judge.

Nicholas Alvarado seeks review of the trial court’s orders denying his motion for postconviction relief, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Alvarado filed a motion and amendment raising a total of eleven claims. The postconviction court summarily denied seven of these claims and denied four claims after a hearing. We affirm the denial of Alvarado’s claims with the exception of a portion of claim one, which it appears the postconviction court failed to consider. We reverse and remand for consideration of this claim only.

In claim one, Alvarado asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to various improper jury instructions. As part of this claim, Alvarado argued that the instruction on sale of methamphetamine omitted the “guilty knowledge” element. It does not appear that the court addressed this specific part of claim one. Our review of the jury instructions confirms Alvarado’s assertion that the sale instruction did not contain an instruction regarding the “guilty knowledge” element. This element, which requires proof that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a substance, was an element of the crime under the statute that was in effect when the underlying offense was committed. See Balmori v. State, 985 So.2d 646, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to consider this part of claim one.

[277]*277Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

992 So. 2d 276, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13429, 2008 WL 4057518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarado-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack