GEORGE A. 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 appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, arguing that consecutive mandatory minimum firearm sentences were improperly imposed for crimes arising from a single criminal episode and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Wiley failed to allege facts showing his offenses arose from a single time and place, and that ineffective assistance claims are not properly raised under Rule 3.800(a).
The court held that Wiley's motion was properly denied because he failed to allege facts establishing that his offenses arose from a single time and place, which is required to challenge consecutive mandatory minimums under the law. Additionally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not properly raised in Rule 3.800(a) motions, which are reserved for cases where the sentence is not authorized by law.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fla. …
[2] Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are not properly raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fla. …
Previewing 2 of 3 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“consecutive mandatory minimum sentences may only be imposed for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places”
Establishes the legal standard for when consecutive mandatory minimums are permissible under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWiley pleaded nolo contendere to robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery. He received three concurrent 15-year terms with three consecutive 3-year man…
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
SHIVERS, Senior Judge.
George A. Wiley has appealed from an order of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800(a). We affirm.
Wiley pled nolo contendere to robbery, kidnapping and sexual battery. He received three concurrent 15-year terms of incarceration, with three consecutive 3-year minimum mandatory terms for use of a firearm. He thereafter moved for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, alleging a double jeopardy violation, i.e., the charged offenses occurred in the course of one criminal episode and thus .should have been charged as one crime. The trial court denied the motion, and this court affirmed. Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, the court noted that Wiley “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.” Wiley at 7. Accordingly, the court affirmed without prejudice to Wiley’s “right to file a properly drafted motion.” Wiley at 7.
On January 20, 1993, Wiley filed the instant 3.800(a) motion alleging that the consecutive minimum-mandatory terms were “illegal when stacked pursuant [to] Florida Statue [sic] 775.087(2).” The motion also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the consecutive sentences. The trial court denied the motion, finding no factual basis for the sentencing allegation, and that the ineffective assistance claim was moot.
Although consecutive mandatory minimum sentences may only be imposed for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places, Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1986), Wiley does not allege that his offenses did not so arise. Further, an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly raised in a motion pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a). See Wyche v. State, 624 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (3.800(a) motions are reserved for the narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposed is not authorized by law). The motion herein was properly denied, and we affirm.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aldric D. Maddox v. State, 673 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…addox’s motion alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise Maddox before he entered his guilty plea. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable in a Rule 3.800 proceeding. See, e.g:, Wiley v. State, 632 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Additionally, construing Maddox’s motion as a Rule 3.850 motion would not be helpful since the motion would [*199] be denied as successive and an abuse of procedure. AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., con…
-
Dedrick Ferguson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (noting that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a)); Tatum v. State, 27 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Maddox v. State, 673 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Wiley v. State, 632 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). See also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (providing that a motion to correct illegal sentence must “affirmatively allege[] that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief”); State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1986)
- Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Wyche v. State, 624 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)