GEORGE WILEY, 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.
George Wiley challenged his sentence following a guilty plea to robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery, arguing double jeopardy because the crimes occurred in a single criminal episode. The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief but allowed Wiley to file a properly drafted motion if he could establish a valid basis.
Double jeopardy challenges to convictions must be pursued under Rule 3.850 rather than Rule 3.800. While Wiley's motion was facially insufficient, he may have a valid complaint if he can demonstrate the crimes occurred in a single criminal episode, warranting reconsideration of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences.
[1] A claim of double jeopardy violation based on multiple offenses arising from a single criminal episode is a challenge to convictions, not sentences, and must be pursued u…
[2] A trial court may properly treat a motion designated as a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800 as a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 i…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“double jeopardy arguments of the sort appellant advanced in this case are challenges to convictions, not sentences, and thus are not cognizable under rule 3.800; rather, they must be pursued by rule 3.850”
Establishes the distinction between conviction challenges and sentence challenges and their proper procedural treatment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWiley pleaded nolo contendere to three counts: robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery. He was sentenced to three concurrent 15-year terms with three …
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 Consecutive Mandatory Minimum Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Wiley (appellant) seeks review of an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. Although the motion was designated a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, the trial court properly treated it as a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a second motion articulating a basis for relief, if he is able to do so.
Appellant was charged in a 3-count information with robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled nolo contendere to all three counts, and was sentenced to three concurrent 15-year terms of incarceration, with three mandatory minimum 3-year terms for use of a firearm, the mandatory sentences to run consecutively. As grounds for relief, appellant claimed a double jeopardy violation, asserting that all of the charged offenses occurred in the course of one criminal episode, and thus should have been charged as one crime. The trial court denied relief, finding that appellant was patently wrong in contending he could receive only one sentence under one case number, as was his contention that he should receive a single sentence for multiple crimes occurring during a single transaction. We agree.
Motions to correct an illegal sentence may be filed pursuant to either rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850. Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, double jeopardy arguments of the sort appellant advanced in this case are challenges to convictions, not sentences, and thus are not cognizable under rule 3.800; rather, they must be pursued by rule 3.850. Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Therefore, it was properly treated as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 by the trial court.
As presently stated, the allegations of the motion are facially insufficient to demonstrate a basis for relief. Mitchell v. State, 581 So. 2d 990, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Nevertheless, appellant may have a valid complaint concerning imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for use of a firearm if, in fact, he was convicted of crimes that occurred in the course of a single criminal episode. See Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992); State v. Suarez, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986); Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983).
Accordingly, the order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a properly drafted motion.
JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…e, thus violating double jeopardy. The double jeopardy argument Salazar advances in this ease is a challenge to his convictions, not sentences, and thus is not cognizable under the rule regarding motions to correct illegal sentences. Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Nevertheless, even if we construe the motion as one seeking post-conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the defendant would still not be entitled to a remedy. The general rule is that a defendan…
-
Echeverria v. State, 949 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…illegal sentence are recognized pursuant to both Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), when the motion attacks the conviction it must be brought under rule 3.850. Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)). Appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective f…
-
Emmet Black v. State, 914 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Williams, 854 So. 2d 215, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); McCraney v. State, 830 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). STEVENSON, C.J., STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- State v. Suarez, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Jones, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1986)
- Gandy v. State, 560 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Yates v. State, 556 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Mitchell v. State, 581 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)