Michaud v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michaud v. State

159 So. 3d 232, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2553, 2015 WL 774612

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 2015

Docket2D14-2935

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 3d 232 (Michaud 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

Michaud v. State, 159 So. 3d 232, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2553, 2015 WL 774612 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

David M. Michaud appeals the postcon-viction court’s order summarily dismissing his motion to vacate his sentence. He sought relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, asserting that because he was a juvenile offender, his sentence of life without the possibility .of parole for burglary is invalid.

The postconviction court denied relief on multiple grounds but incorrectly recited that Michaud’s sentence was a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Although the sentencing documents attached to the postconviction court’s order impose a life sentence, they do not reflect that the sentence is without the possibility of parole. Further, the State acknowledges that Michaud is parole eligible. Because Michaud’s .motion is based on the faulty premise that he is not parole eligible, we affirm.

Affirmed.

CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

David M. Michaud appeals the postcon-viction court’s order summarily dismissing his motion to vacate his sentence. He sought relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, asserting that because he was a juvenile offender, his sentence of life without the possibility .of parole for burglary is invalid.

The postconviction court denied relief on multiple grounds but incorrectly recited that Michaud’s sentence was a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Although the sentencing documents attached to the postconviction court’s order impose a life sentence, they do not reflect that the sentence is without the possibility of parole. Further, the State acknowledges that Michaud is parole eligible. Because Michaud’s .motion is based on the faulty premise that he is not parole eligible, we affirm.

Affirmed.

CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 3d 232, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2553, 2015 WL 774612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michaud-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.