IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
I
Anita Krecic
0
Petitioner
8
v.
Case No. 5D12-2503
State of Florida
Respondent
FROM THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
of
Anita Krecic, Pf6 se
C.M.C.F. 2A-B-zone
P.O. Box 88550
Pearl, MS 39299
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Citations
iii
Statement of the Case and Facts
2
Summary of Argument
4
Argument
5
Issue:
Trial Court's retention of jurisdiction over
life sentence, i.e., applying a consecutive
sentence to an indeterminate sentence, constituted an illegal sentence, pursuant to
Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.850, and was error
of fundamental proportion, warranting a de
novo standard of review
Conclusion
10
Certificate of Service
11.
Certificate of Compliance
iin
TABLE OF CITATIONS
1. CASES
a) Florida Courts of Appeal
1. Anderson v. State, 484 So.2d 1127 (Fla.4th DCA 1991)
4, 8
2. Cofield v. State, 453 So.2d 409 (Fla.1st DCA 1984)
10
3. Cordero-Pena v. State, 353 So.2d 661 (Fla.3rd DCA 1982)
7
4. Fuston v. State, 764 So.2d 1779 (Fla.2nd DCA 2000)
8
5. Kosek v. State, 448 So.2d 57 (Fla.5th DCA 1984)
6, 10
6. Mobley v. State, 743 So.2d 692 (Fla.4th DCA 1985)
7, 10
7. Woodson v. State, 439 So.2d 975 (Fla.3rd DCA 1983)
b) Florida Supreme Court
1. Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 433 (Fla.1975)
7
8
2. Goene v. State, 577 So.2d 1306 (Fla.1991)
9
3. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 621
9
(Fla.1991)
4. Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000)
7
c) Other States Supreme Court
1. Kelch v. Director of Nevada Department of Prisons,
10 F.3d 684 (Nev.1993)
9
d) United States Supreme Court
1. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 @ 484 (1995)
9
2. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005)
9
e) Other Laws/Reviews
1. A Right Without A Remedy, 74 Minn. Law Review
437 @ footnote 290 (1990)
9
2. FLORIDA RULES
1. Fl. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.850(a)(1)
10
3. FLORIDA STATUTES
1. Fl. Statute 921.16
5, 6
2. Fl. Statute 947.16(3)
5. 6
11
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
COMES NOW, Anita Krecic, Petitioner, and does.submit her Jurisdictional Brief from the Nov. 28, 2012 5th District Court of Appeal Order denying her Motion for Rehearing. This motion stemmed
from Krecic's April 9, 2012 original motion to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Corect an Illegal Sentence, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 3.850,
where Krecic sought relief from said sentence imposed March 2,
1990 resulting specifically from a 1987 attempted armed robbery.
The illegal sentence in question was ordered to run consecutive
to Krecic's indeterminate Life sentence in the state of Mississippi, and even though the Florida attempted armed robbery occurred
prior to the fatal shooting in Mississippi, Krecic was tried and
sentenced first in Mississippi, preventing the execution of the
Florida consecutive sentence to ever commence 25 years after the
fact.
After trying unseccessfully for many years to have the Florida
detainer (imposed by the consecutive sentence) removed, Krecic
was recently informed by a Florida attorney that "this is an il-
legal sentence since the consecutive portion of sentence follows
an indefinite period of incarceration, that you cannnot be given
a
sentence that begins on an unknown date
as it lacks the rg,
quired specificity." Therefore, Krecic filed for the first time,
1.
a Motion on the Illegal Sentence Issue.
Petitioner now appeals the Court of Appeals dicision, which directly conflicts with decisions of several others,swhere Judges
stacked consecutive sentences on top of their "indeterminate Life
sentences", which Appellate Courts ruled were improper, and, in
this particular case, other constitutional violations have occurred as a result of the Florida sentence remaining in a perpetual
state.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This Court is being asked to review a decision where the 5th
District Court and other Florida Courts of Appeal ruled that trial courts retention of jurisdiction of consecutive sentencing
over Life sentences constituted an illegal sentence and was error
of fundamental proportion, invoking de novo review.
Facts of the Case
On or about March 31, 1987, Orange County issued a warrant against Krecic and her conspirator, Tracy Hansen, for an attempted
armed robbery, Days later on April 10, 1987, Krecic was charged
with accessory to murder following a fatal shooting by her codefendant. Although the Florida incident preceded the Mississippi
incident, Krecic was tried and sentenced first for the Mississippi crime, preventing the Florida sentence to ever be carried
out; because it was not until February of 1990 that Krecic was
extradicted from Mississippi to Orange County, Florida, where she
agreed to plead guilty to what amounted to a 5 Year setnece with
2.
3 years running "consecutive to sentence in Mississippi" due to
the 3-year minimum mandatory stipulation for possession of a fire
arm.
Krecic sought many unsuccessful attempts to resolve the Florida
detainer--imposed by the consecutive sentence--as it has been a
strong deterrent throughout her entire incarceration. After recently learning the proper motion to file according to FL ST RCRP
Rule 3.850, and finding cases based on this same scenario, Krecic
was confident the Court would rule in her favor as others who
were given consecutive sentences on tòp of Life terms by the
state of Florida.
Initial Filings of Illegal Sentence Motion
So on April 9, 2012, Krecic at last filed a Post conviction Relief Motion to ... Correct the Illegal Sentence, pursuant to FL ST
EERR Rule 3.850, which was denied April 17, 2012 for 1) "failing
to timely file her notice of appeal"; 2) "failing the oath requirement", which court said would allow this Petitioner to com-..
ply, but also said claim was "without merit". (A-1 thru A-3).
The Notice of Appeal the Judge referred to was precisely in reponse to a September 22, 1994 letter requesting the Judge to remove the detainer and had nothing to do with this
current first
time post conviction Motion to Correct this Illegal sentence; the
oath requirement was immediatley corrected in the Motion for Rehearing May 7, 2012; and the merit issue is now before this Honorable Supreme Court. An Order denying Motion for Bëhearing was
filed on May 18, 2012 giving no further reasoning than the aforementioned April 17, 2012 denial.
3.
This Petitioner then filed a Notice to Appeal to the 5th District Court of Appeals on JunG 19, 2012 and her Initial Brief to
this Court in August of 2012, which she received "per curiam affirmed", October 16, 2012 (B-1). Krecic filed a Motion for Rehearing & Request for Written Opinion November 5, 2012, although
no written opinion was ever given by the Court of Appeals, just
an Order page dated on November 28, 2012 (C-1) and a Mandate page
(C-2) signed by the Judge.
Krecic is now invoking the State's Supreme Court to show how
this consecutive sentence applied to a Life sentence is indeed illegal.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Petitioner Krecic brings for Judicial review this main issue
based on the FL ST CRPR Rule 3.850(a):(1), that is, the retention
of jurisdiction issue--which runs contrary to other Appellate and
Supreme Court decisions--as it esentially invalidated the Florida
Statute when consecutive sentences are applied to Life sentences,
declaring them "inoperable",
Both the Florida Courts of Appeal and their Supreme Court has
solidly determined that where a consecutive sentence is applied
to a Life sentence, "it is not possible under the statute and
constituted an illegal sentence." (Anderson v. State, 584 So.2d
1127; 1991).
Although the Judges in the lower court had properly assessed
that the lower court had sentenced Petitioner as the Statute suggested:
4.
"sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same
information must be served consecutively unless the court directs
they be served concurrently"_(Fl. Statute 921.16),
the Judges stopped short of discovering that the general rule on
imposing consecutive sentences in Fl. Statute 947.16(3) that says
"When any person is convicted of 2 or more felonies and consecutive sentences are imposed, then the jurisdiction of the trial
court judge as provided herein shall apply to 1/3 of the total
consecutive sentences imposed"(F1. Statute 947.16(3)),
could not be applied to Petitioner's case, as Life is immeasurah
ble so the "1/3 application" was an impossibility since Life does
not necessarily terminate, and bars any retention of jurisdiction
The direct result of the illegal sentence has been the inab.ility to serve out the consecutive portion of the Fl. sentence and
an enhancement of sentence in the MDOC by keeping Petitioner
classified as an out of state "detainee".
ARGUMENT
Sole Issue
The issue before the Court is that the Fl. sentence should have
been run concurrently because the sentence became illegal when
the Judge chose to run it consecutively since cosecutive sentences applied to Life sentences have rendered the Fl. Statutes "inoperable" and it's own courts declared this is an "illegal sentence which had to be corrected" based on Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule
3.850(a)(1), invoking a de novo review.
Point 1: The lower court base its ruling on just one Statute directive regarding consecutive sentencing, but failed to thoroughly
review other Statutes on Rules for applying this type sentence-5.
which has proven to be a legal impossibility--because a Life sentence is an "immeasurable" sentence.
The lower court Judge used only Fl. Statute 921.16 as her sole
guide to state why she thought Petitioner was sentenced properly;
this statute reads: "Sentence of imprisonment for offense not
charged in the same information must be served consecutively unless the court directs they be served concurrently." (A-2)
She never explains the impossibilities of how this type sentence can be applied to Life and fails to observe the invalidity
of retention of jurisdiction by the conflicting statutory duty
imposed upon sentencing procedures, leaving Petitioner's sentence to remain in a perpetual state.
The Fl. Statutes, however, do describe how consecutive sentences are to be applied:
"When any person is convicted of 2 or more felonies and consecutive sentences are imposed, then the jurisdiction of the trial
court judge as provided herein shall apply to 1/3 of the total
consecutive sentences imposed." (Fl.Statute 947.16(3))
This is where it becomes a legal impossibility described by
Florida's own Courts of Appeal.
"Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeals has recently adopted
the position that the Fl. Statutes are inapplicable where a life
sentence is imposed" (saying) "where a court imposes a life sentence 947.16(3) [regarding application of consecutive sentences]
is inoperable because a life span is immeasurable (and) no calculation of the length of time jurisdiction is retained can be
made"(Kosek v. State, 448 So.2d 57; 1984).
In applying the decision, Florida's Supreme Court held that to
retain jurisdiction it had to be
"a definite term of imprisonment", adding, "The same caannot be
said of a Life sentence. Since a Life sentence has no known termination point, it would be impossible to calculate when the trial
courts retention of jurisdiction had ended and hence the court
could retain jurisdiction for a longer time than permitted by law
(Kosek v. State, 448 So.2d 57; 1984).
6.
Where another "Appellant was sentenced to life in prison on 1
count to run consecutive with a 5-year sentence on a 2nd count",
Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals.held:
"where a court imposes a life sentence, Sectionn 947.16(3) [regarding application of consecutive sentencing]...is inoperable,
and therefore, hold that attempted retention of jurisdiction over
a portion of a life sentence consititues an illegal sentence and
is error of fundamental proportion" (Mobley v. State, 473 So. 2d
692; 1985).
Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeals baled silhifably When
applying a consecutive sentence to Life:
"the 3 rd District Court of Appeals has adopted the position
that where a life sentence is imposed, Fl. Statute is inapposite,
since a life span is immeasurable, no calculation of time jurisdiction can be retained can be made" (Woodson v. State, 439 So.
2d 975; 1983).
Again, the 3rd District Court of Appeals affirming the invalidity over a life sentence in Cordero-Pena said:
"Where a court imposes a life sentence, Fl. Statute Section
947.16 is inoperable since because a life span is immeasurable.."
(Cordero-Pena v. State, 421 So.2d 661; 1982).
Point 2: The Fl. sentence should have been ordered to run concurrently because Florida's own Courts have ruled the statute invalid in applying
this specific type sentence to Life.
It was totally within the Judges discretion to sentence Petitioner concurrently, and permitted by statute, even with a 3-year minimum mandatory sentence stipulation required by Fl. Statute 775.087(2) for said offense, the
Judge could have still shosen to tun it concurrently as indicated by the Trapp
case:
"The trial court sentenced Trapp to 4½ years on the aggravated battery
charge to tun concurrently with a 155.75 month prison sentence on the attempted murder charge...because Trapp committed the attempted murder while carrying a firearm, . . . court imposed a 3-year mandatory minimum prison term"
(Trapp v. State, 760 S.2d 924; 2000): [his offenses occurred in 199T &
1997]
7.
"Case law tells us there is no way to determine 1/3 of a life
sentence, and that therefore, tetention of jurisdiction over a
portion of a life sentence is not possible under the statute...
and constituted illegal sentence which had to be corrected" (Anderson v. State, 584 So.2d 1127; 1991).
Point 3: The consecutive sentence imposed by the trial court cannot be executed and has served to arbitrarily enhance Petitioner's
sentence in the
state of Mississippi by keeping her classified
as an out-of-state "detainee". A sentence that cannot commence or
be executed is nothing less than an illegal sentence.
The lower court also stated "the fact that the sentence in the
above styled case is ordered to run consecutive to a life sentence
is of no consequence" (A-2), was an abuse of discretion.
Petitioner points out that both the Court of Appeals and the
U.S. Supreme Court has solidly determined that:"
__c
"where a sentence is consecutive or concurrent directly affects
the length of time spent in prison, therefore, rights are involved..."(Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 473; 1975).
The issue then, is that the sentence should·have been ran concurrent. Though the Judge was following the "usual" rule to sentence one for a separate charge, he never considered that it was
not possible to apply this type sentence to the existing Life
sentence. As a result, the adverse consequences to Petitioner in
the MDOC have done nothing more than subect her to cruel and unusual restraints her entire incarceration.
The Supreme Court had this to say:
"the supreme court explained that an illegal sentence is not
only one which exceeds the statutory maximum, but is also one
which patently fails to comport with statutory and constitutional
limitations" (Fuston v. State, 764 So.2d 779; 2000).
The Appellate Court erred also then, by failing to ascertain
that the systemic effects resulting from the
25 year old charge
8.
has resulted in violations of the 14th Amendment Due Process
Clause: LIberty Interest & Atypical and Significant hardship by
keeping Petitioner restricted in classification and denying her
many benefits and privileges given to those with good conduct.
The Supreme Court identifies "Atypical & Significant":
"...potentially indefinite nature of confinement wieghs in favor of finding atypical and significant hardship" (Wilkinson v.
Austin, 54 U.S. 209; 2005).
It is simply an abuse of discretin for the reviewing judges to
simply have ignored the punitive factors from a sentence that is
impossible to esecute by saying it is of "no consequence" (A-2).
"Although showing a pattern od delay is neither a necessary nor
a sufficient condition for demonstrating a constitutional violatlon in any individual case, courts should entertain different considerations when a petitioner demonstrates that his case is part
of an ongoing pattern of constitiutional violation...the courts
must consider the systemic effects of its decision" (A Right With
out.a Remedy, 74 Minn. L. Rev. 437; 1990).
Other courts had this to say:
"In short, the defendant at some point must be entitiled to rely on the finality of the court's action" (Goene v. Stater 577 So
2d 1306; 1991).
"The Florida Constitution, arguably a·broader constitutional
provision, protects against sentences that are either cruel or unusual" (Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 5231; 1993)
"After Sandin, the Supreme Court made it clear that the touchstone of the inquiry into existence of protected state-created
liberty interest in avoiding restrictive condition of confinement
is not in the language of regulations regarding those conditions,
but in the nature of those conditions themselves in relation to
the ordinary incidents of prison life..." (Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472 @ 484; 1995).
"A liberty interest is a rational continuum, which broadly
speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" (Kelch v.Dir. Nevada Dept. of
Prisons, 10 F.3d 684; Nev. 1993).
It has become apparent that the consecutive sentence cannot be
served and the failure to remedy it could be a deliberate attempt
to further punish Petitioner, who has spent her entire incarcer9.
ation bemersefulbfoiehebrbelmfamilsbeha91b&ithata@bè¼itädtkätthed2
tonflictincy áéhtencesat cn ce a .
Thus, the problematic imposition of running the consecutive sentence to Life has declared the Fl. Statute invalid saying:
"any retention of jurisdiction over an immeasurable Life sentence is improper" (Cofield V. State, 453 So.2d 409; 1984).
This sentence then, was imposed in violation of the Law of the
State of Florida, Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.850(a)(1) & (a)(3).
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests this Honorable court to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct this illegal Sentence, according to the
Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850, which it's own Appellate courts concluded:
"Where court imposes a life sentence, Fl. Statute Section 947.16
is inoperable...and therefore, hold that attempted retention of
jurisdiction over a portion of a life sentence constitutes an illegal sentence and is error of fundamental proportion" (Mobley v.
State, 473 So.2d 692; 1985).
And where this Supreme Court, in approving an appellate decission said:
"retention of jurisdiction over a life sentence is improper because the period cannot be calculated...Since a life sentence has
no termination point,..the court could retain jurisdiction for a
longer time than permitted by law" (Kosek v. State, 448 So.2d 57;
1984).
Petitioner requests--at the very least--this Court affirm the
conviction, but vacate that portion of the consecutive sentence
(as in Mobley v. State) that has proven to be impossible to execute and has served to inflict harsh measures against Petitioner
while serving her life sentence in the state of Mississippi.
10.
Respectfully submitted,
I, 629sÉá
ny-t-xA^s, personally appeared by the undersigned
authority, this
day of January, 2013, who first being duly
sworn, says she is the Petitioner in the above styled cause, that
she has read the foregoing Jurisdictional Brief, and has personal
knowledge of the facts and matters therein set forth and alleged;
and that each and all of these facts and matters are true and
correct.
r
.----.
9
.
ID #99998
TANYABERRY
.
Anita Krecic,
etitioner
\Commission Expires/
.. Aug. 24, 2015 .
SWORN AND SUBSCRIB
..,6.
re me this the /
day of January,
2013.
My Commission Expires:
Notar
Publi
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a prepaid copy of the foregoing was mailed
on January 7 , 2013, to the Clerk of the 5th District Court of
Appeals; 300 S. Beach St; Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 and to the
Office of the State Attorney; Post Conviction Unit; P.O. Box 1673
Orlando, Florida 32801, by U.S. Postal Mail.
By :
L
/1.4
Anita Krecic
11.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the lettering in this Brief is from a "Brother
Model typewriter with a Courier 12-point font and complies with
the font requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2).
By;
Anita Krecic
111
$/18/2012 1:48 PM FILED IN OFFICE LYDIA GARDNER CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT ORANGE CO FL
, 4/17/2012 4:32 PM FILED IN OFFICE LYDIA GARDNER CLERK OF CIRCUlT COURT ORANGE CO FL
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR ORANOE COUNTY, FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA,
CASE NO.:
DIVISIONNO.:
Plaintiff,
1987-CF-002542
11
Vs.
ANITA L. KRECIC,
Defendant.
I
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT AN ILLEGAL
SENTENCE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's pro se "Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct an Illegal Sentence" filed on April 9, 2012, pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850. After reviewing Defendant's Motion, the court file, and the record,
the Court finds as follows:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
. ,
On July 21, 1987, Defendant was charged by Information with robbery with a firearm
(count one), possession of a firearm in commission of a felony (count two), aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon (count three), and grand theft second-degree (count four). (See
Information, attached). On March 2, 1990, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to count one,
robbery with a firearm, count three, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and count four,
grand theft second-degree; the State entered a nolle prosegui on count two, possession of a
firearm in commission of a felony. (See Plea Form and Nolle Prosequi, attached). On the same
day, the Court sentenced her to five (5) years in the Department of Corrections (DOC) on counts
one, three, and four, with a three (3) year minimum-mandatory term on counts one and three, and
with credit for one (1) year and 284 days time-served. (See Judgment, Sentence, and Court
Minutes attached). The Court ordered the sentence in the above-styled case to run concurrent
with the sentence in case 1987-CF-005320, and consecutive to the sentence in Defendant's
Mississippi case. (See Judgment, Sentence, and Court Minutes, attached).
The Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed Defendant's direct appeal for lack of
jurisdiction as she failed to timely file her notice of appeal. Krecic v. State, 5D94-2675. (See
Order Dismissing, attached). The Florida Supreme Court dismissed review on July 5, 1995.
Krecic v. State, 659 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1995).
5/18/2012 1:48 PM FILED IN OFHCE LYUIA GAKUNbH ULbKK UF UINGUI I UUUK I UKAN6t: UU FL
4/17/2012 4:32 PM FILED IN OFFICE LYDIA GARDNER CLERK OF CIRCUlT COURT ORANGE CO FL
In her Motion, Defendant argues her sentence is illegal on the basis that the Court ordered
the sentence in the above-styled case to run consecutive to her life sentence in her Mississippi
case.
First, the Court finds Defendant's Motion is not under oath. All motions filed pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be under oath. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b), (c).
"Failure to meet the oath requirement warrants dismissal of the motion without prejudice."
Groover v. State, 703 So. 2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 1997). The form adopted by the Florida Supreme
Court for the filing of motions for postconviction relief contains the following language for the
oath:
Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared
who first being duly sworn, says that he'is the Defendant in the above-styÉl
cause, tha@has read the foregoing Motion for Post-Conviction Relief*áríd has
personal knowledge of the facts and matters therein set forth and alleged; and that
each and all ofthese facts and matters are true and correct.
(your signature)
Fla. R. Crim P. 3.987; In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 353 So. 2d 552, 559 (Fla.
1977).
In the alternative, the Florida Supreme Court has adopted the use of an unnotarized oath
that contains the following language:
Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and
that the facts stated in it are true.
(your signature)
State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 1993). Ordinarily the Court would strike
Defendant's Motion with leave for her to comply with the oath requirement of Rule 3.850.
However, the Court finds her claim is without merit.
Pursuant to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1987), sentences of imprisonment for
offenses not charged in the same information must be served consecutively unless the Court
directs that they be served concurrently. The fact that the sentence in the above-styled case is
ordered to run consecutively to a life sentence is of no consequence. Accordingly, Defendant is
not entitled to any relief.
2 of3
5/18/2012 1:48 PM FILED IN OFFICE L
, 4/17/2012 4:32 PM FILED IN OFFICE LYDIA GARDNER CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT ORANGE CO FL
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant's "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct an Illegal Sentence" is
DENIED.
2. Defendant has THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this final Order
within which to appeal. However, a timely filed motion for rehearing
shall toll the finality of this Order.
3. Copies of the Information, Plea Form, Nolle Prosequi, Judgment, Sentence,
Court Minutes, and Order Dismissing are attached to this Order and
incorporated by reference.
4. The Clerk of the Court shall promptly serve a copy of this Order upon
Defendant, including an appropriate certificate of service.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this
day of April, 2012.
HEAT R PINDER RODRIÛUÉZ
Circuit Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Order has been furnished by U.S. Mail or hand
delivery to Anita L. Krecic (DC No. 44712) (2-A B-Zone), Central Mississippi Correctional
Facility, Post Office Box 88550, 3794 Highway 468, Pearl, Mississippi 39208; and to the Office
of the State Attorney, Postconviction Felony Unit, 415 North Orange Avenue, Post Office Box
1673, Orlando, Florida 32801, on this
day of April, 2012.
Ju
3of3
i
sistant
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JULY TERM 2012
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ANITA KRECIC,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 5D12-2503
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Decision filed October 16, 2012
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Heather Pinder Rodriguez, Judge.
Anita Krecic, Pearl, MS, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
ANITA KRECIC ,
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 5D12-2503
STATE OF FLORIDA ,
Appellee.
DATE: November 28, 2012
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that Appellant's Motion for Rehearing, filed November 5, 2012,
is denied.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is
(a true copy of) the original Court order
PAMELA R. MASTERS, CLERK
ppo*
cc:
Office Of Attorney General
Anita Krecic
M A N D A T E
from
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY APPEAL OR BY PETITION, AND
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION THE COURT HAVING ISSUED ITS OPINION OR DECISION;
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE REQUIRED
BE HAD IN SAID CAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING OF THIS COURT ATTACHED HERE
TO AND INCORPORATED AS PART OF THIS ORDER, AND WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
WITNESS THE HONORABLE RICHARD B. ORFINGER, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, AND THE SEAL OF THE SAID
COURT AT DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA ON THIS DAY.
DATE: November 28, 2012
FIFTH DCA CASE NO.: 5D 12-2503
CASE STYLE: ANITA KRECIC
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORIGIN: Orange
TRIAL COURT CASE NO.: 1987-CF-2542-B
I hereby certify that the foregoing is
(a true copy of)the original Court mandate.
PAMELA R. MASTERS, CLERK
Nompo*
cc:
Office Of Attorney General
Anita Krecic
Orange Co.Circuit Ct.Clerk