Mederos-Morales v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mederos-Morales v. State

222 So. 3d 1234, 2017 WL 3091177, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10499

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2017

DocketCase No. 5D17-466

StatusPublished

This text of 222 So. 3d 1234 (Mederos-Morales 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

Mederos-Morales v. State, 222 So. 3d 1234, 2017 WL 3091177, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10499 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jorge Mederos-Morales, seeks review of a summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel after he entered an open plea to the offense of failure to register as a career offender. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. In his motion, Appellant alleges that counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead to the offense because he does not meet some of the criteria of a “career offender” as set forth in section 775.261(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014). Appellant, however, failed to allege that he did not meet the final criterion, designation as a prison releasee reoffender, which would also make him a “career offender.” As such, his motion is insufficient on its face. We reverse and remand with instructions to strike Appellant’s motion with leave to amend. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Bhoj v. State, 172 So.3d 564, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jorge Mederos-Morales, seeks review of a summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel after he entered an open plea to the offense of failure to register as a career offender. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. In his motion, Appellant alleges that counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead to the offense because he does not meet some of the criteria of a “career offender” as set forth in section 775.261(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014). Appellant, however, failed to allege that he did not meet the final criterion, designation as a prison releasee reoffender, which would also make him a “career offender.” As such, his motion is insufficient on its face. We reverse and remand with instructions to strike Appellant’s motion with leave to amend. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Bhoj v. State, 172 So.3d 564, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 So. 3d 1234, 2017 WL 3091177, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mederos-morales-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack