Shaw v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Cordes v. State

    842 So. 2d 874 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that where defendant seeks to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the prejudice prong of the Strickland test is satisfied by demonstrating “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors [the defendant] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” (alteration in original) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985))

    In this appeal, Mr. Cordes has argued that the trial court erred in departing from the 1992 sentencing scoresheet based upon a subsequent escape conviction. See Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1989); Tesney v. State, 647 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Shaw v. State, 615 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The only case cited by the State to support such a result, Jones v. State, 571 So.2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), appears distinguishable because it involved a violation of probation by committing the new "unscoreable" offense of murder. If Mr. Cordes is convicted of any charges on remand, the trial court must review the appropriate sentencing scheme in place on the date of Mr. Cordes' offenses in light of these arguments.

  2. Tesney v. State

    647 So. 2d 222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 17 times

    All four reasons clearly relate to the basis for Tesney's violation of probation and are thus invalid. Shaw v. State, 615 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). See also Barba v. State, 600 So.2d 554, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ("Neither factors relating to the violation of probation itself nor the fact that the conduct occurred soon after the release from incarceration constitute a valid reason for departure.").