Acevedo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Acevedo v. State

108 So. 3d 719, 2013 WL 756341, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3300

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-4455

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 So. 3d 719 (Acevedo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acevedo v. State, 108 So. 3d 719, 2013 WL 756341, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3300 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Noel Acevedo [“Acevedo”] appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.

In January 2011, Acevedo entered written pleas to:

No. 10-CF-1198 — Failure To Comply w/ Sex Offender Reporting Requirements

No. ll-CF-5 — Driving While License Cancelled/Suspended/Revoked (Habitual Offender)

He was sentenced to concurrent thirty-five month DOC terms. In the first case, he was sentenced as a sexual offender. He did not appeal.

In July 2012, he filed a rule 3.850 motion asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Acevedo contended that his [720]*720counsel misadvised him regarding the charge of “Failure To Comply with Sex Offender Reporting Requirements” and that, based on the misadvice, he entered into a plea to a crime “he could not have committed” because he was a juvenile when convicted. Relying on State v. Williams, 75 So.3d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), he contends that there was no reporting requirement under Florida law for a juvenile with his status. § 943.0435(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). He has also filed a letter from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement informing him that they have reviewed his case and they have determined that he does not meet the criteria for registration.

The State concedes that the conviction for failing to comply with sex offender reporting requirements must be set aside. The State disputes, however, that trial counsel was ineffective because the First District’s Williams opinion was not decided until approximately eleven months after his plea and sentence. The State suggests that counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in the law. In our view, Williams does not represent a change in the law, merely the application of the statute. We vacate the judgment and sentence on the count of failure to comply with sex offender reporting requirements and remand for resen-tencing, if appropriate.

Judgment and sentence VACATED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, J.

Noel Acevedo [“Acevedo”] appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.

In January 2011, Acevedo entered written pleas to:

No. 10-CF-1198 — Failure To Comply w/ Sex Offender Reporting Requirements

No. ll-CF-5 — Driving While License Cancelled/Suspended/Revoked (Habitual Offender)

He was sentenced to concurrent thirty-five month DOC terms. In the first case, he was sentenced as a sexual offender. He did not appeal.

In July 2012, he filed a rule 3.850 motion asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Acevedo contended that his [720]*720counsel misadvised him regarding the charge of “Failure To Comply with Sex Offender Reporting Requirements” and that, based on the misadvice, he entered into a plea to a crime “he could not have committed” because he was a juvenile when convicted. Relying on State v. Williams, 75 So.3d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), he contends that there was no reporting requirement under Florida law for a juvenile with his status. § 943.0435(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). He has also filed a letter from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement informing him that they have reviewed his case and they have determined that he does not meet the criteria for registration.

The State concedes that the conviction for failing to comply with sex offender reporting requirements must be set aside. The State disputes, however, that trial counsel was ineffective because the First District’s Williams opinion was not decided until approximately eleven months after his plea and sentence. The State suggests that counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in the law. In our view, Williams does not represent a change in the law, merely the application of the statute. We vacate the judgment and sentence on the count of failure to comply with sex offender reporting requirements and remand for resen-tencing, if appropriate.

Judgment and sentence VACATED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 So. 3d 719, 2013 WL 756341, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acevedo-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack