NOEL LOPEZ ACEVEDO, 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.
The court held that trial counsel could not be ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in law that was merely an application of existing statute.
Appellant pleaded guilty to failure to comply with sex offender reporting requirements and other charges. He later filed a motion for post-conviction …
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
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 *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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bish v. State, 139 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…nt in Washington, he was not adjudicated on or after July 1, 2007, but in 1992. The State concedes that the postconviction court erred when it denied Bish’s motion because Bish was not required to register as a sexual offender. See Acevedo v. State, 108 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Therefore, we reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for the court to vacate Bish’s judgment and sentence. Reversed and remanded with instructions. ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ„ Concur.…
-
Q.A. v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…uvenile under the age of fourteen at the time of the commission of the qualifying offense is not subject to the registration and reporting requirements under the statute. E.g., Bish v. State, 139 So. 3d 451, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Acevedo v. State, 108 So. 3d 719, 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Thus, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a proper adjudication order. REVERSED and REMANDED. EVANDER, C.J., COHEN, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.…