Puskac v. State

872 So. 2d 1008, 2004 WL 1057833
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 12, 2004
Docket4D04-1077
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 872 So. 2d 1008 (Puskac 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
Puskac v. State, 872 So. 2d 1008, 2004 WL 1057833 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

872 So.2d 1008 (2004)

Michael A. PUSKAC, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D04-1077.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 12, 2004.

Michael A. Puskac, Arcadia, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Puskac appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, which raised two claims. We affirm as to the first issue without comment.

In the second claim of error, Puskac argues his habitual felony offender sentence is illegal since the predicate convictions used to habitualize him were not sequential. Based on this court's holding in Richardson v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1716, ___ So.2d ___, 2003 WL 21697171 (Fla. 4th DCA July 23, 2003), supplemented on reh'g, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D215 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan.14, 2004) we agree. While this issue was raised and rejected in a prior motion for postconviction relief, denying the instant claim, in light of the recent holding in Richardson, would result in manifest injustice. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla.2003).

As such, we reverse the summary denial as to this issue alone and remand. As we did in Richardson, the State may introduce evidence of other qualifying convictions which would allow for a habitual felony offender sentence, should any exist. Additionally, we again certify conflict with McCall v. State, 862 So.2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and subsequent cases from the Second District Court of Appeal.

FARMER, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Related

PUSKAC v. State
960 So. 2d 10 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Ingram v. State
943 So. 2d 325 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
State v. Puskac
946 So. 2d 952 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Moore v. State
944 So. 2d 1063 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Nesbitt v. State
912 So. 2d 15 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Brown v. State
912 So. 2d 7 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Bell v. State
912 So. 2d 5 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Petruny v. State
884 So. 2d 312 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
872 So. 2d 1008, 2004 WL 1057833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puskac-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.