Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 So. 3d 224

Davis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 31, 2012

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2012-10-31

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2013

1 state decisions

Relies on 96 So. 3d 412 - State v. Adkins · Holmes v. State · 76 So. 3d 991 - Maestas v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-10-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion for postconviction relief in which he sought to vacate his guilty plea to drag trafficking. The district courts of appeal and our supreme court have rejected the holding of Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011). Section 893.01, Florida Statutes (2009). State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012); Maestas v. State, 76 So.3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Holcy v. State, 83 So.3d 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

¶2Further, Shelton’s reasoning is inapplicable to a drug trafficking offense as the trafficking statute expressly contains a mens rea requirement that a defendant “knowingly” possess, sell, purchase, manufacture, deliver, or bring into this state the drugs in question. § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Thus, no possibility exists that a defendant could be held strictly liable for an “unknowing” possession or delivery of the drugs. Maestas, 76 So.3d at 993-95.

¶3Affirmed

STEVENSON, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
/100/so3d/224 · .json · Public domain