MARVIN WILLIAMS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Marvin Williams appealed his probation violation sentence, challenging the trial court's failure to conduct a presentence investigation before sentencing him as a habitual violent felony offender. The court held that Williams waived any PSI objection through his plea agreement, but the trial court erred in failing to reduce its oral findings and sentence to writing as required by due process.
Williams waived any challenge to the lack of a PSI through his original plea agreement accepting HVFO sentencing without a PSI, so he cannot challenge his violation of probation sentence on that basis. However, the trial court erred in failing to reduce its oral findings and sentence to writing as required by due process in probation revocation proceedings.
[1] A defendant who agrees to be sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender without a presentence investigation as part of a negotiated plea cannot later challenge a sen…
[2] Due process requires a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation in a probation revocation hearing.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Because Williams's original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea in which he agreed to be sentenced as an HVFO without a PSI, he could not have challenged his original sentence based on the lack of a PSI, and accordingly cannot challenge his violation of probation sentence on that basis.”
Establishes that Williams waived his right to challenge the lack of a PSI through his plea agreement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was originally sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement in which he agreed to be senten…
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 Due Process In Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1191 Lower Tribunal No. F16-25891 ________________
Marvin Williams, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Altfield, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Haccord J. Curry, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant Marvin Williams appeals his sentence imposed after a violation of probation, alleging that the trial court failed to conduct a presentence investigation (PSI) before sentencing him as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO). Because Williams’s original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea in which he agreed to be sentenced as an HVFO without a PSI, he could not have challenged his original sentence based on the lack of a PSI, and accordingly cannot challenge his violation of probation sentence on that basis. See Hatcher v. State, No. 3D23-1252 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 26, 2025).
However, the trial court erred in failing to reduce its oral findings and sentence at the violation of probation hearing to writing. In a probation revocation hearing, due process requires “a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.” McCloud v. State, 653 So. 2d 453, 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612 (1985)).
Affirmed in part; remanded with instructions to enter a written probation revocation order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1985)
- McCLOUD v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)