JAMES R. WILSON, 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.
James Wilson appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion challenging his twenty-year sentence for attempted sexual battery. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Wilson's motion was facially insufficient because he failed to adequately explain the basis for his challenge or demonstrate why correction was warranted.
The court affirmed the summary denial of Wilson's motion, holding that it was facially insufficient because Wilson bore the burden of demonstrating why his sentence required correction but failed to adequately explain the basis for his challenge or provide a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.
[1] A defendant seeking postconviction relief from a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why the sentence requires correction.
[2] A motion for postconviction relief is facially insufficient if it contains only conclusory statements and fails to set forth a prima facie showing of entitlement to relie…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“one seeking to "correct" a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why that sentence requires such correction”
Establishes the fundamental burden of proof that an appellant must meet in postconviction sentencing challenges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson entered a plea of nolo contendere to attempted sexual battery, a first-degree felony, and received a sentence of twenty years. In his postconvi…
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Wilson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief. All five grounds set forth in the motion relate to the sentencing guidelines.
We agree with the trial court that the motion is facially insufficient, and affirm. In so doing we write primarily to emphasize that one seeking to “correct” a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why that sentence requires such correction. Upon a plea of nolo contendere Wilson was sentenced to twenty years for attempted sexual battery, a felony of the first degree.1 He now claims that the sentence should have been no more than seven years.
However, Wilson does not explain how he reached this more lenient calculation, or how the trial court arrived at the more severe disposition. Despite some indication from Wilson that a guideline departure occurred, and certain references to the appropriate point score, it is not discernible from the motion whether the length of sentence was reached by agreement {e.g., in exchange for a reduction from capital sexual battery), whether the court intended a departure based on other reasons, or whether the sentence was within the guideline range.
If the trial court did impose a departure sentence, and Wilson had reason to question the legality of the reasons given, that problem should have been dealt with on direct appeal. Trimble v. State, 511 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). If the length of sentence was affected by mistakes of fact contained within the presen-tence investigation, such as a misrepresentation of Wilson’s prior record, it is necessary for one to have objected to those errors at the time of sentencing. Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Alternatively, a failure to clarify known factual errors at the time of sentencing could constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
However, any such claim requires a showing that, but for counsel’s omissions, a lesser sentence would have been imposed. See, e.g., Morris v. State, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCÁ 1986).
Finally, if Wilson believes the sentence is solely the result of a computational error in the scoresheet, he is required to show where such error occurred and how it affected the length of sentence. Cf Brunson v. State, 489 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (scoresheet errors which do not affect the length of sentence are deemed harmless).
Because Wilson s motion contains little more than conclusory statements regarding the adequacy of counsel’s representation and the deficiencies of the present sentence, he has failed to set forth a prima facie showing of his entitlement to relief. Accordingly, the trial court was justified in denying the motion without requiring a response from the state, attaching evidence from the case files and records, or conducting an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur. . §§ 777.04(4)(a) and 794.011(2), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sterling Franklyn Stubbs v. State, 675 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).…
-
Fidel A. Prieto v. State, 627 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…HOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur. . We take this opportunity, once again, “to emphasize that one seeking to 'correct' a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why that sentence requires such correction.” Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). While we do not subject prisoners’ pleadings to the same standards that apply to those filed by trained attorneys, we cannot grant relief when we must guess about the reasons such relief is demanded.…
-
Romano v. State, 562 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…for the allegations and is insufficient to require a hearing. I would affirm. Gorham v. State, 521 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.1988); Ricco v. State, 474 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Martinelli v. State, 467 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Prince v. State, 508 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Swain v. State, 502 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Trimble v. State, 511 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Stevens v. State, 502 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Sharper Lee Jones v. Isabell A. Jones, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Morris v. State, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Brunson v. State, 489 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)