WAYNE REISTAD, 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 erred in denying relief without a hearing or record attachments for the claim regarding hydrocodone dosage, and that the claim regarding the involuntary plea should be considered.
Reistad appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing his hydrocodone dosage did not meet trafficking thresholds and his plea w…
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 No Contest Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wayne Reistad appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Reistad alleges that he possessed less than 15 milligrams per dosage unit of hy-drocodone and thus his trafficking conviction should be vacated under Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999), and Klayman v. State, 765 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), rev. granted, 786 So. 2d 1189 (Fla.2001). The trial court denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record which conclusively refute Reistad’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of relief as to this claim and remand for further proceedings.
Reistad also alleges that his plea of no contest was involuntary and should be withdrawn. When Reistad entered his plea, the Supreme Court of Florida had not yet resolved the conflict among the district courts concerning the use of aggregate or per dosage concentrations of hy-drocodone for trafficking purposes under section 893.135(l)(c)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). Reistad contends that he would not have entered his plea had his offense been classified as a third degree felony. The trial court did not address this claim. Therefore, we remand for consideration of this issue.
In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kathyrn Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999)
- Klayman v. State, 765 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)