Case Name: Joseph BEACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-06-09
Citations: 600 So. 2d 1212
Docket Number: No. 89-1484
Parties: Joseph BEACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 600
Pages: 1212–1214

Head Matter:
Joseph BEACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-1484.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 9, 1992.
William H. Webster of William H. Webster, P.A., Crawfordville, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Laura Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION ON REMAND
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction and reviewed the question certified in our prior opinion filed on July 31, 1990, in this case. Beach v. State, 564 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The su preme court's opinion, reported at 592 So.2d 237 (Fla.1992), answered the certified question in the negative, disapproved our decision, and remanded "with leave for Beach to file an amended motion to correct his guidelines scoresheet" as the court was "unable to determine whether Beach was entitled to counsel in his prior convictions because the record does not indicate the possible punishments which Beach faced." Id. at 239-40. Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment and opinion of this court filed July 31,1990, be set aside and held for naught, that the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida filed January 2, 1992, be adopted as the opinion and judgment of this court, and that it, together with this opinion, be remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings in accordance therewith.
BOOTH and SMITH, JJ., concur.
ZEHMER, J., specially concurs with written opinion.
. The question certified was phrased in light of the inclusion of certain misdemeanor convic tions on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet and read:
IS THE DEFENDANTS STATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT HE WAS NOT PROVIDED NOR OFFERED COUNSEL AT THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN PRIOR CONVICTIONS SUFFICIENT TO PUT THE STATE TO THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT SUCH CONVICTIONS WERE IN FACT COUNSELED OR THAT COUNSEL WAS KNOWINGLY WAIVED?
Beach, 564 So.2d at 614.