WILLIE DAN ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Willie Dan Roberts appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Roberts was convicted of burglary of an occupied structure for breaking into a jewelry store display case. The appellate court reversed because the trial court erred in finding that defense counsel would never have argued that the display case itself—rather than the store—was the relevant occupied structure under the statute.
The trial court erred in summarily denying Roberts's postconviction motion by determining that counsel would never have made the argument that the display case was not open to the public. It would have been reasonable for defense counsel to advance this argument based on the statutory definition of burglary and the rebuttal raised by the State at trial.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel may be summarily denied only if the defendant is entitled to no relief, as a matter of law,…
[2] A trial court errs in summarily denying a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by determining that counsel would never make a particular argum…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant alleged that defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge on the basis that the business was open to the public; thus, Appellant could not be guilty of burglary of an occupied structure.”
Establishes the prior defense strategy regarding the occupied structure element
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was convicted of burglary of an occupied structure and grand theft. He broke a window display case from the outside of a jewelry store while t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burglary Of An Occupied Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Willie Dan Roberts, seeks review of the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant was convicted of burglary of an occupied structure and grand theft. The basis for the burglary conviction was that Appellant broke a window display case from the outside of a jewelry store while the store was open for business and was occupied by the store owner. In his motion, Appellant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue of whether the area burglarized by Appellant was an occupied structure. Appellant argued that the display case, and not the jewelry store, was the relevant “structure,” which must have been occupied at the time of the burglary to support his conviction. The trial court summarily denied Appellant’s motion, finding that the display case was too small to be occupied or unoccupied and that Appellant’s counsel would never have made that argument. We find that the trial court erred in determining that counsel would never make the proposed argument.
Appellant alleged that defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge on the basis that the business was open to the public; thus, Appellant could not be guilty of burglary of an occupied structure. See § 810.02(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (defining burglary as “entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public....”). Appellant also alleged that the State argued in rebuttal that the display case itself was not open to the public and that the trial court denied the original motion. Thus, contrary to the postconviction court’s assertion, it would have been reasonable for defense counsel to argue that the display case was not open to the public. See Knight v. State, 983 So.2d 64, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Davis v. State, 988 So.2d 1125, 1126; Dakes v. State, 545 So.2d 939, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Colbert v. State, 49 So.3d 819, 821-22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Collett v. State, 676 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s postconviction motion, and remand *879for either attachment of those portions of the record conclusively showing that Appellant is entitled to no relief, or for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WOLF, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dakes v. State, 545 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Hershell Curtis Collett v. State, 676 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Colbert v. State, 49 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Knight v. State, 983 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Davis v. State, 988 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)