MICHAEL MICHAUD, 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.
Michael Michaud appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel motion, alleging trial counsel failed to object to improper scoring of out-of-state convictions. The court affirmed on four points but reversed on the claim regarding improper scoring of Connecticut prior convictions due to ambiguities between Connecticut and Florida statutes.
The court reversed as to the out-of-state conviction scoring claim, finding it legally sufficient because if ambiguities existed between Connecticut and Florida statutes regarding burglary and larceny, counsel's failure to identify and object to these ambiguities constituted deficient performance that would result in a shorter sentence.
[1] A trial court must include offenses committed in other jurisdictions under prior record, scoring them at the severity level of the analogous Florida crime.
[2] When scoring out-of-state convictions, courts must review only the elements of the out-of-state crime, not the underlying facts.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(14) requires the trial court to include, under prior record, offenses committed by the offender in other jurisdictions. These convictions "are scored at the severity level at which the analogous or parallel Florida crime is located."”
Establishes the governing rule for scoring out-of-state convictions in sentencing guidelines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichaud had prior out-of-state convictions from Connecticut, specifically burglary and larceny charges. The trial court scored these prior convictions…
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 Ambiguity In Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Michaud appeals from the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. Michaud raises five points on appeal. We affirm as to points I, II, IV, and V, and reverse as to point III.
Michaud contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper scoring of his prior out of state convictions *376which, if properly scored, would have resulted in a reduced sentence.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(14) requires the trial court to include, under prior record, offenses committed by the offender in other jurisdictions. These convictions “are scored at the severity level at which the analogous or parallel Florida crime is located.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704(d)(14). In Holybrice v. State, 753 So.2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), this court held that when applying this rule, courts must review “only the elements of the out-of-state crime, and not the underlying facts....” Id. at 623 (quoting Dautel v. State, 658 So.2d 88, 91 (Fla.1995)). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(14)(E) provides:
(E) When unable to determine whether the conviction to be scored as prior record is a felony or a misdemeanor, the conviction must be scored as a misdemeanor. When the degree of felony is ambiguous or the severity level cannot be determined, the conviction must be scored at severity level 1.
In this case, the prior out of state convictions occurred in Connecticut. Michaud asserts: (1) there was an ambiguity between the Connecticut statutes for burglary at the times of the prior offenses, as the Connecticut statutes only distinguished between day and night burglaries, making no distinction regarding the burglary of a dwelling, structure, or conveyance. This changes the severity level and reduces his total points; (2) the larceny statutes of Florida and Connecticut are ambiguous and, therefore, should have scored at level one instead of levels six and two; and (3) the state should have scored Michaud’s priors at the level of severity they were assigned at the time they were committed.
Michaud’s claim is legally sufficient in that if there are ambiguities between the Connecticut and Florida statutes, counsel failed to determine this and object, making his performance deficient. If Michaud’s score were lower, based upon the ambiguities between Connecticut and Florida statutes, his sentence would be shorter. However, the state did not submit any evidence to the trial court which refutes this claim. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing, or in the alternative, to allow the state to attach portions of the record which refute Michaud’s claim.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded.
TAYLOR, J., and BLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 260 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…of the out-of-state crime should be considered in 2 determining whether a conviction is analogous to a Florida crime. Dautel v. State, 658 So. 2d 88, 91 (Fla. 1995); Bracey v. State, 109 So. 3d 311, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Michaud v. State, 2 So. 3d 375, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Montoure v. State, 880 So. 2d 793, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Knarich v. State, 866 So. 2d 165, 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Snipes, 793 So. 2d at 1108; Holybrice v. State, 753 So. 2d 621, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Lee v. State…
Authorities Cited
- Dautel v. State, 658 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1995)
- Jordache Holybrice v. State, 753 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)