WILLIAM HICKMAN, A/K/A WILLIAM CLYDE HICKMAN, 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 appeal is frivolous and lacks a legal basis for the requested relief.
The defendant, convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life plus fifteen years, had his sentence corrected by the trial court to reflect a life se…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court dismisses this appeal.
In 1985, William Hickman was convicted for six separate armed robberies. He was sentenced to life plus fifteen years. Included within that sentence was six minimum mandatory sentences of three years, each to run consecutively to the others, for a total of eighteen years. The sentencing guidelines recommendation was life. The trial court did not enter a sentencing departure order. Upon motion to correct sentence which was filed by Hickman’s attorney, the trial court recognized that adding consecutive sentences to a life sentence constituted a departure sentence requiring written reasons under the sentencing guidelines. The trial court granted the motion and corrected the sentences to reflect one life sentence with a three year minimum mandatory sentence. All other sentences were three years which were to run concurrently with the life sentence.
Hickman, pro se, now appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for transcripts. Hickman provided no reasons for his need of transcripts.
We dismiss this appeal, finding that it is frivolous in that there is no legal basis for the requested relief. Furthermore, the time spent on this meritless matter was a waste of both this court’s and the trial court’s valuable time. We strongly advise Hickman that he should consider carefully if the existing rules, statutes, and case law permit the relief he requests before filing •any additional pro se motions or appeals.
Dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hickman v. State, 606 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…in the state’s brief, by virtue of the instant proceeding Hickman has already received all the relief to which this claim entitles him. We note in passing a prior instance wherein Hickman appealed despite a ruling favorable to him. Hickman v. State, 569 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA1990). . Any comments by these officers clearly were regarded by all parties as advisory rather than binding. Contrast Bullard v. State, 477 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA1985), wherein the defendant alleged she had relied upon promises of len…