MICHAEL FREDERICK GATZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's summary denial of postconviction relief was improper regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing errors, requiring further consideration.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental flaws in his sentence, including illegal enhancemen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentence Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Frederick Gatz appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Of the several grounds raised in the motion, only three require further consideration by the circuit court. The remaining issues raised in the motion are without merit and the circuit court properly denied relief as to those issues.
Gatz asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that he advised his counsel of four witness, who were not called to testify at trial, although two of the witness are alleged to have testified in mitigation at sentencing. The trial court did not make sufficient attachments to its order to refute this claim.
Gatz contends that his sentence is fundamentally flawed for two reasons: first, that his sentence was enhanced illegally for the use of a weapon from a second degree to a first degree felony when the jury did not make a specific finding that he had used a weapon in the crime; and second, the state argued that his habitual offender status made it mandatory that the court sentence him to life for the enhanced crime. The trial court’s order makes no reference to these issues. Accordingly, we reverse the denial and remand for further proceedings. After remand the trial court may again deny the motion by attaching portions of the files and records in the case that refute the appellant’s allegation.
Accordingly, the instant case is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lockheed Space Operations & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Bettie Langworthy, 686 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…tween the substantive responsibility to pay for rehabilitation and the procedural obligation to evaluate the claimant’s ability to achieve suitable gainful employment if provided with appropriate training and education. Fairchild Aircraft v. Raybon, 634 So. 2d 801, 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) also distinguished between the substantive cost of providing rehabilitation and the procedural obligation to make a finding regarding the probability of restoring the claimant to employability through training or education.…
-
Iran Lomax Boles v. W. Orange Paint & Body & First Alliance Ins. Co., 667 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…vercome the barriers to returning to gainful employment.” However, the fact that there is evidence that Boles, with rehabilitation, may be returned to gainful employment is not dis-positive of the PTD issue. See, e.g., Fairchild Aircraft v. Raybon, 634 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Rather, where, as here, the medical evidence alone (or in conjunction with the testimony of vocational or rehabilitation consultants) does not support a finding of PTD status, the JCC should examine the claimant’s job search eff…