Macaluso v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Macaluso v. State

836 So. 2d 1080, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1118, 2003 WL 242921

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-4835

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 836 So. 2d 1080 (Macaluso 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

Macaluso v. State, 836 So. 2d 1080, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1118, 2003 WL 242921 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Vincent Macaluso appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850¹ and his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under rule 3.800. We affirm the denial of the latter motion without comment. With respect to the motion for postconviction relief, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The motion for postconviction relief alleged several issues that the trial court correctly determined were time barred under rule 3.850. However, Macaluso also asserted that the predicate offenses used to support his adjudication as a habitual felony offender were either nonqualifying misdemeanors or felonies that fell outside of the applicable five-year time frame under the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). That claim is cognizable under rule 3.800 and may be raised at any time. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); Hollingsworth v. State, 802 So.2d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because the trial court incorrectly denied the claim concerning predicate offenses as time barred, and did not otherwise address the claim, we reverse. On remand, if the trial court again denies relief, it must attach to its order those portions of the record supporting denial.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ, Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Vincent Macaluso appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850¹ and his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under rule 3.800. We affirm the denial of the latter motion without comment. With respect to the motion for postconviction relief, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The motion for postconviction relief alleged several issues that the trial court correctly determined were time barred under rule 3.850. However, Macaluso also asserted that the predicate offenses used to support his adjudication as a habitual felony offender were either nonqualifying misdemeanors or felonies that fell outside of the applicable five-year time frame under the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). That claim is cognizable under rule 3.800 and may be raised at any time. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); Hollingsworth v. State, 802 So.2d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because the trial court incorrectly denied the claim concerning predicate offenses as time barred, and did not otherwise address the claim, we reverse. On remand, if the trial court again denies relief, it must attach to its order those portions of the record supporting denial.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

836 So. 2d 1080, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1118, 2003 WL 242921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macaluso-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack