Marusak v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marusak v. State

789 So. 2d 1015, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 18086, 2000 WL 33239979

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 30, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-1091

StatusPublished

This text of 789 So. 2d 1015 (Marusak 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

Marusak v. State, 789 So. 2d 1015, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 18086, 2000 WL 33239979 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eric Marusak appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s order without discussion. However, there may be a problem with the legality of Marusak’s conviction which is not refuted by the limited record before this court. See Santiago v. State, 731 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding a new version of section 322.34 did not apply retroactively to a defendant who committed his offense prior to the statute’s effective date). Therefore, this affirmance is without prejudice to the filing by Marusak of a motion to correct illegal sentence or petition for writ of habeas corpus if it appears that his conviction for felony driving while license suspended is in error. See Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla.1998); Thorp v. Smith, 64 Fla. 154, 59 So. 193 (1912); Richardson v. Moore, 754 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Eric Marusak appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s order without discussion. However, there may be a problem with the legality of Marusak’s conviction which is not refuted by the limited record before this court. See Santiago v. State, 731 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding a new version of section 322.34 did not apply retroactively to a defendant who committed his offense prior to the statute’s effective date). Therefore, this affirmance is without prejudice to the filing by Marusak of a motion to correct illegal sentence or petition for writ of habeas corpus if it appears that his conviction for felony driving while license suspended is in error. See Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla.1998); Thorp v. Smith, 64 Fla. 154, 59 So. 193 (1912); Richardson v. Moore, 754 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 1015, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 18086, 2000 WL 33239979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marusak-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack