MICHAEL A. PUSKAC, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2007-02-28
No. 4D04-1077
WARNER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
960 So. 2d 10 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2007)

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.


Holding

A sentence of probation qualifies as a sentence for the purpose of habitual offender enhancements.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant sought post-conviction relief, arguing that a probation sentence could not be used as a predicate for habitual offender sentencing. The …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

On Remand From The Florida Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

The supreme court has quashed our decision in Puskac v. State, 872 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and remanded for reconsideration. State v. Puskac, 946 So. 2d 952 (Fla.2006). The court required that we review the issue under State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2005).

Puskac sought relief under rule 3.850 challenging his habitual offender sentence. Puskac claimed the trial court could not use a probation sentence as a predicate for the enhanced sentence. The trial court denied relief. In accordance with our pri-or rulings, and noting conflict, we reversed. Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), supplemented on reh’g, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Upon review of State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2005), we now affirm the summary denial. Puskac admitted that the sole issue for review was whether a probation sentence can be a sentence for purposes of , habitual offender enhancements. The supreme court clarified the conflict between districts by declaring a sentence of probation is a sentence within the meaning of the habitual offender sentencing statutes. Puskac’s claim of error must be denied.

Affirmed.

WARNER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw