Shields v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shields v. State

117 So. 3d 492, 2013 WL 3815144, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11584

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 2013

DocketNo. 2D12-964

StatusPublished

This text of 117 So. 3d 492 (Shields 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

Shields v. State, 117 So. 3d 492, 2013 WL 3815144, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11584 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Lee Shields entered an open plea in several cases for possession of cocaine, obstructing an officer without violence, grand theft, and felony petit theft. He now appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief in case number 2008-CF-3528. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. More specifically, Mr. Shields argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead to grand theft when the evidence did not support the original claim of burglary and the value of the stolen item supported only the offense of petit theft. See generally Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881, 887-88 & n. 1 (Fla.2011) (delineating value amounts relating to theft charges). To its credit, the State agrees. We reverse the order denying the motion and remand for the trial court to allow Mr. Shields the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See Matton v. State, 872 So.2d 308, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

Lee Shields entered an open plea in several cases for possession of cocaine, obstructing an officer without violence, grand theft, and felony petit theft. He now appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief in case number 2008-CF-3528. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. More specifically, Mr. Shields argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead to grand theft when the evidence did not support the original claim of burglary and the value of the stolen item supported only the offense of petit theft. See generally Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881, 887-88 & n. 1 (Fla.2011) (delineating value amounts relating to theft charges). To its credit, the State agrees. We reverse the order denying the motion and remand for the trial court to allow Mr. Shields the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See Matton v. State, 872 So.2d 308, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 So. 3d 492, 2013 WL 3815144, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shields-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack