JOE NATHAN WILLIAMS, 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.
Williams appealed a circuit court's denial without hearing of his Rule 3.850 motion raising constitutional challenges to his sexual battery conviction. The appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the motion without a hearing when the record did not conclusively show Williams was entitled to no relief.
The court held that the circuit court erred in denying the motion without a hearing because the order was not predicated on legal insufficiency and did not have attached conclusive proof that Williams was not entitled to relief. The court also held that, despite these issues normally falling outside trial court jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court's determination that they were matters within the circuit court's jurisdiction bound the appellate court, giving the circuit court jurisdiction to decide them.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a motion for postconviction relief without a hearing if the order is not predicated upon the legal insufficiency of the motion and does not…
[2] A Florida Supreme Court order transferring a habeas corpus petition to the circuit court and directing it be treated as a Rule 3.850 motion establishes the law of the cas…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“all three issues raised in appellant's "motion" require a hearing unless the files and record conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief”
Establishes the standard for when a Rule 3.850 motion can be denied without a hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of sexual battery in a 1977 trial. In 1979, he filed a habeas corpus petition with the Florida Supreme Court raising three issu…
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 Right To Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge.
In Williams v. State, 351 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), this court affirmed appellant’s conviction of sexual battery. Within the respective judicial systems of most civilized countries of the free world, that would have been the end of the matter. Here it was only the end of the first round.
The second round commenced on June 1, 1979, when Williams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Florida Supreme Court asserting 1) that he had been denied due process because his conviction was based on an unconstitutional statute, 2) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal, and 3) that he was denied the right to a direct appeal. The Florida Supreme Court, determining (over Williams’ objections) that the issues raised were matters within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, ordered the petition transferred to the circuit court and treated as a motion under Rule 3.850. Williams v. Wainwright, Case No. 56,990.
The circuit court did treat the petition as a motion under Rule 3.850, but denied it without a hearing. This appeal is from that order. Appellant correctly asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion without a hearing since the order was not predicated upon the legal insufficiency of the motion and did not have attached a copy of that portion of the files and records which conclusively show that he was not entitled to relief. As the record before us now stands, all three issues raised in appellant’s “motion” require a hearing unless the files and record conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief. Calhoun v. State, 362 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
True, two of the issues, denial of effective assistance of counsel on appeal and denial of right to appeal, would normally not be within the jurisdiction of a trial court to consider. Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981); Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981). Rather, the claims would properly be raised by a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in an appellate tribunal. Knight v. State, supra; State v. Wooden, 246 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1971).
However, appellant filed such a writ in the Florida Supreme Court, and that court determined specifically that the issues were matters within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The law of this case is that the circuit court has jurisdiction to decide these issues. Greene v. Massey, 384 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1980). And so, on to the third round.
REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Fla. Prestressed Concrete Ass'n, Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 384 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1980)
- Greene v. Massey, 384 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Wooden, 246 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1971)
- Calhoun v. State, 362 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)