Richard Seccia v. State of Florida

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC94138 ____________ RICHARD SECCIA, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [July 13, 2000] PER CURIAM. We have for review Seccia v. State, 720 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), on the basis of certified conflict with Mizell v. State, 716 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently resolved this conflict in Maddox v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S367 (Fla. May 11, 2000). Because the parties have not adequately briefed the merits of the alleged scoresheet error in this case, we remand for the district court's consideration in light of our opinion in Maddox.1 It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions First District - Case No. 1D97-3046 (Duval County) Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Mark E. Walker, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Sherri Tolar Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent 1 We decline to address the other issues raised by Seccia that are not the basis of our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, 595 n.3 (Fla. 1999); McMullen v. State, 714 So. 2d 368, 373 (Fla. 1998). -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.