MICHAEL A. 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.
Michael Williams challenged a post-conviction motion denying relief from his sentence for armed robbery and attempted murder. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that Williams was properly advised at his plea hearing that he could be sentenced outside sentencing guidelines, and therefore cannot collaterally attack the departure sentence or related sentencing issues.
The trial court properly denied the post-conviction motion. A defendant who was advised during the plea hearing that he could be sentenced outside guidelines cannot collaterally attack the departure sentence as exceeding the plea agreement. Issues previously raised and decided on direct appeal, including the validity of departure reasons and minimum mandatory sentences, cannot be raised again in a collateral attack. Any scoresheet miscalculation issue is moot given the plea agreement's inclusion of the possibility of sentencing outside guidelines.
[1] A defendant advised at the time of entering a guilty plea that sentencing could occur outside the guidelines cannot later challenge the sentence on those grounds in a pos…
[2] Issues raised and decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a collateral attack via a motion for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The transcript of the plea hearing conclusively shows that appellant was advised he could be sentenced outside the guidelines.”
Establishes the factual predicate for denying the post-conviction motion—Williams had actual notice of the sentencing possibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams entered guilty pleas in 1984 to two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted first degree murder. He was sentenced to concurrent 15…
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 Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order by which his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief was denied. We find the trial court properly denied the motion on the basis of evidence showing that appellant was advised upon entry of his plea that he could be sentenced outside the guidelines. We therefore affirm.
Appellant in 1984 entered guilty pleas to two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted first degree murder. He was sentenced outside the guidelines to concurrent 15-and 7-year terms of incarceration, and to concurrent three-year minimum mandatory terms for firearm possession. The trial court departed from the guidelines on five stated grounds. Appellant sought review of his conviction and sentence in this court, challenging the departure sentence, the reasons for departure, and the three-year minimum mandatory sentences. This court per curiam affirmed.
Appellant filed a Rule 3.850 motion, alleging that the court imposed a greater sentence than he agreed to in his plea, that the sentence is not supported by valid departure reasons, is based upon a miscalculated scoresheet, includes three-year minimum mandatory sentences about which ap pellant was not advised, and subjects him to double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion, attaching a copy of appellant’s signed plea agreement and portions of the transcript from the plea hearing conclusively showing that appellant was advised he would be sentenced outside the guidelines. The trial court found that appellant already had sought review of the remaining issues on direct appeal.
The transcript of the plea hearing conclusively shows that appellant was advised he could be sentenced outside the guidelines. Departure sentences based on legitimate plea bargains have been approved by the courts, even in the absence of reasons for departure. See, Smith v. State, 519 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), certifying the question to the Florida Supreme Court; Quarterman v. State, 506 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). This court on direct appeal upheld the departure. Because appellant raised the validity of the departure reasons and the three-year minimum mandatory sentences on appeal, he cannot again raise these issues in a collateral attack. Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla.1985). The issue of whether the scoresheet was miscalculated, thereby subjecting appellant to double jeopardy, is moot in view of the plea agreement, which included the possibility of sentencing outside the guidelines range.
The order is therefore affirmed.
MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mikenas v. State, 460 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1984)
- Quarterman v. State, 506 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Smith v. State, 519 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- State v. Walther, 519 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)