Glen L. Young v. State of Florida ( 2014 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
GLEN L. YOUNG, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D14-2287
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed September 11, 2014.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Mark W. Moseley, Judge.
Glen L. Young, pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion raising seven claims. However, he
argues only two of the claims, claims two and three, in his initial brief. He has
therefore waived the right to have the remaining five claims addressed in this
appeal. See White v. White, 627 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
We hold that, regarding claims two and three, the appellant has presented
facially sufficient claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for refusing to
stipulate that the appellant qualified for violent career criminal status. The state is
not required to prove a defendant qualifies for violent career criminal status if a
defendant offers to stipulate to this status. If a defendant offers to stipulate to this
status, the state and the court should accept the stipulation. Once a defendant
stipulates to this status the state is not required to prove violent career criminal
status. See Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); State v. Emmund, 698 So.
2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
We cannot conclude, based upon the record before us, that the appellant did
not suffer prejudice resulting in a different outcome of his trial due to the state
presenting evidence to the jury that the appellant qualified for violent career
criminal status and arguing before the jury that the appellant was a violent career
criminal. See Emmund; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984).
We therefore reverse and remand the trial court’s order on appeal and direct
the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on claims two and three.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
2