Cruz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cruz v. State

869 So. 2d 574, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14351, 2003 WL 22187122

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-231

StatusPublished

This text of 869 So. 2d 574 (Cruz 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

Cruz v. State, 869 So. 2d 574, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14351, 2003 WL 22187122 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Wayne Cruz appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). His motion raised three grounds for relief: (1) that points for a prior offense of burglary of a dwelling to which he pleaded no contest should not have been included as prior record on his scoresheet; (2) similarly, that points for a prior grand theft to which he pleaded no contest should not have been included as prior record on his score-sheet; and (3) that the offense of retaliating against a witness was improperly scored. We affirm the denial of his motion on the first two grounds but reverse and remand for the circuit court to reconsider its decision on the proper scoring of the primary offense.

Cruz alleges that the primary offense category on his guidelines scoresheet improperly reflected the crime of retaliation against a witness as a first-degree felony rather than as a second-degree felony. It appears that Cruz is correct. See § 914.23(2), Fla. Stat. (1991).

The circuit court directed the State to respond to Cruz’s motion. Although the State did respond to several of Cruz’s claims, it unfortunately failed to respond specifically to the contention regarding scoring of the primary offense. In denying relief to Cruz, the circuit court relied upon the State’s response and incorporated it by reference into its order. Thus, the record presents no basis for the court’s denial of relief of this claim.

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the circuit court and remand the cause for the circuit court to prepare an amended order that addresses this claim.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

COVINGTON and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Wayne Cruz appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). His motion raised three grounds for relief: (1) that points for a prior offense of burglary of a dwelling to which he pleaded no contest should not have been included as prior record on his scoresheet; (2) similarly, that points for a prior grand theft to which he pleaded no contest should not have been included as prior record on his score-sheet; and (3) that the offense of retaliating against a witness was improperly scored. We affirm the denial of his motion on the first two grounds but reverse and remand for the circuit court to reconsider its decision on the proper scoring of the primary offense.

Cruz alleges that the primary offense category on his guidelines scoresheet improperly reflected the crime of retaliation against a witness as a first-degree felony rather than as a second-degree felony. It appears that Cruz is correct. See § 914.23(2), Fla. Stat. (1991).

The circuit court directed the State to respond to Cruz’s motion. Although the State did respond to several of Cruz’s claims, it unfortunately failed to respond specifically to the contention regarding scoring of the primary offense. In denying relief to Cruz, the circuit court relied upon the State’s response and incorporated it by reference into its order. Thus, the record presents no basis for the court’s denial of relief of this claim.

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the circuit court and remand the cause for the circuit court to prepare an amended order that addresses this claim.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

COVINGTON and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 So. 2d 574, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14351, 2003 WL 22187122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.