DAVID ALEX WILLIAMS, 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.
David Williams appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, challenging the constitutional validity of Florida's charging statute and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the charging information. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the motion facially insufficient and holding that Williams's guilty plea waived any non-fatal defects in the charging document.
The court affirmed the summary denial of the post-conviction motion, holding that the motion was facially insufficient as it failed to conform to Rule 3.850(e), and that Williams's guilty plea waived any non-fatal infirmities in the charging information.
[1] A guilty plea waives any infirmities in the form of a charging information that are not fatal to its sufficiency to charge an offense.
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief must conform to the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(e).
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“the motion is facially insufficient because it does not conform to rule 3.850(e), and that appellant's guilty plea waived any infirmities in the form of the information not fatal to its sufficiency to charge an offense”
The court's rationale for affirming the summary denial—the motion failed to meet procedural requirements and the guilty plea waived non-fatal defects.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams pleaded guilty to carjacking and was sentenced to 31 months. He did not appeal the judgment or sentence at that time. In his post-conviction …
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 Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant, who alleged in his motion that he pled guilty to carjacking, was sentenced to 31 months, and did not appeal the judgment or sentence, contended that the charging information “was highly prejudice (sic), because it improperly shifts the burden of proof’ (i.e., that by including the word “did” from the form information in section 923.03, Florida Statutes, the charging document “stated he ‘did ’ the crime”); that section 923.03 “is unconstitutional and unconstitutionally applied upon the implementation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140”; and that defense counsel was ineffective “for not objecting to the alleged defects and not filing a Motion to Dismiss the defective charging document” (emphasis in the original).
Appellant’s arguments concerning the “uneonstitutionality” of section 923.03 were as follows: 1) “Chapter 923 was not adopted by the Florida Supreme Court to promulgate practice and procedure as a rule per Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution”; 2) “The State Attorneys are not uniform in the language application of the charging document throughout the state as required by the Article V, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution”; 3) “The substantive language of Florida Statute Chapter § 923(sic) is in violation of the separation. of power (sic), because the legislature is encroaching upon the power of judicial branch of government”; 4) “Chapter 923 violates due process of law by not giving Defendant a fair notice and depriving him of a fair hearing”; and 5) “Chapter 923 violates the rights of the accused by not properly informing the Defendant of accusation (sic) against him and right to effective assistance of counsel.”
We AFFIRM the order summarily denying this motion on its merits. We further point out that the motion is facially insufficient because it does not conform to rule 3.850(e), and that appellant’s guilty plea waived any infirmities in the form of the information not fatal to its sufficiency to charge an offense, see Yates v. State, 509 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MC Carthy v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Yates v. State, 509 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)