Cash v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cash v. State

499 So. 2d 47, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 125, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11004

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1986

DocketNo. BM-181

StatusPublished

This text of 499 So. 2d 47 (Cash 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

Cash v. State, 499 So. 2d 47, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 125, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11004 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Appellant claims error in the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his prior misdemeanor convictions should have been excluded from the recommended sentencing guidelines scoresheet calculation. We affirm. Appellant’s argument is without merit, in that he misconstrues the holding in Bordeaux v. State, 471 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Under Section III(B) of the scoresheet, scoring is limited to prior felony convictions; however, misdemeanor convictions are still scored under Sections II and 111(A) of the scoresheet.

Appellant submitted with his post-conviction motion a motion for insolvency in which he sought to be relieved of the [48]*48costs imposed at the time of his sentencing. Under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), “the court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining, upon motion, whether a person is indigent for the purpose of this section.” See also, Hughes v. State, 497 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s decision but remand for a ruling on appellant’s motion.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Appellant claims error in the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his prior misdemeanor convictions should have been excluded from the recommended sentencing guidelines scoresheet calculation. We affirm. Appellant’s argument is without merit, in that he misconstrues the holding in Bordeaux v. State, 471 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Under Section III(B) of the scoresheet, scoring is limited to prior felony convictions; however, misdemeanor convictions are still scored under Sections II and 111(A) of the scoresheet.

Appellant submitted with his post-conviction motion a motion for insolvency in which he sought to be relieved of the [48]*48costs imposed at the time of his sentencing. Under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), “the court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining, upon motion, whether a person is indigent for the purpose of this section.” See also, Hughes v. State, 497 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s decision but remand for a ruling on appellant’s motion.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 47, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 125, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cash-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack