Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

842 So. 2d 909

Morales v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 26, 2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-02-26

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 2015

2 state decisions

Applies FL 810 § 810.02

Relies on Burdick v. State · Morales v. State · 476 So. 2d 662 - State v. Foreman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-02-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant Leonardo T. Morales’ petition for writ of habeas corpus.

¶2Morales first argues that, upon resen-tencing, the inclusion of case no. 85-3514 as a prior record rather than as an additional offense in the guideline scoresheet was error. This issue, however, has already been decided by Morales v. State, 613 So.2d 922, 923 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). See also Rodriguez v. State, 589 So.2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Thorp v. State, 537 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

¶3Morales next argues that his life sentence should be reduced to a thirty year maximum sentence. However, burglary with an assault is a first degree felony which can be punishable by life imprisonment. See Fla. Stat. § 810.02(2)(a)(2002); Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267, 268 n. 5 (Fla.1992) (use of the term “punishable by term of years not exceeding life imprisonment,” is synonymous with “punishable by life imprisonment”).

¶4Morales’ argument that his sexual battery conviction should be set aside also lacks merit. See State v. Foreman, 476 So.2d 662 (Fla.1985).

¶5Affirmed..

/842/so2d/909 · .json · Public domain