LEROY 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.
The court held that the trial court correctly denied the defendant's post-conviction relief motions as untimely and facially insufficient.
The defendant appealed the summary denial of three post-conviction relief motions related to escape and robbery convictions. The sentences were impose…
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 Coerced Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals the summary denial of three separate motions for post-conviction relief, each motion corresponding to a different criminal charge. Two of the cases involve escape convictions, while the third attacks a conviction and sentence for robbery. Since defendant received a total of eleven and one-half years in prison, with none of the sentences having been imposed later than 1969, and since defendant does not allege that he otherwise is “in custody” as a result of these convictions, Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), the trial court correctly denied all three motions as untimely.
An examination of the motions further shows that two and part of a third are insufficient on their face. Defendant’s sole ground for relief from the escape convictions is predicated upon insufficiency of the evidence, an issue which must be raised, if at all, on appeal. Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). As to the robbery conviction, defendant’s claim that his plea was coerced by counsel is also insufficient; defendant alleges only that counsel “told him to plead guilty because his codefendant was going to testify against him.”
Lastly, defendant states that he was without counsel when sentenced for the robbery. Since the present motions were not adjudicated on their merits, our affirmance is without prejudice to defendant to refile a motion alleging deprivation of counsel. McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983). The trial court need entertain any such motion only if defendant can establish continuing “custody” stemming from the robbery conviction, as that term is defined in Weir. Affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)