KEVIN 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.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to provide documentary evidence or hold an evidentiary hearing to refute Williams' claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding habitual offender sentencing eligibility.
When a trial court summarily denies a Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding habitual offender sentencing without providing record evidence or holding an evidentiary hearing, reversal and remand are required.
[1] When a trial court on remand is directed to provide record evidence refuting a Rule 3.850 claim or hold an evidentiary hearing, summary denial without attaching such evid…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin Williams appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present eviden…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Williams appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
In his motion, Williams alleges he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to present evidence of his prior criminal convictions which would demonstrate he did not qualify for habitual offender sentencing. Previously, in Williams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), we reversed and remanded this case with directions to the trial court to provide record evidence refuting Williams’ claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the trial court again summarily denied Williams’ motion. Although the court’s order references Williams’ judgments and sentencing sheets in the previous cases, no copies of these documents were provided to this court for its review. Further, the trial court failed to specify which of Williams’ prior convictions qualified him for sentencing as a habitual felony offender. We accordingly cannot determine whether Williams was properly sentenced as a habitual felony offender. We therefore once again reverse and remand this case for attachments of documents that refute Williams’ claim or for an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toney v. State, 817 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…CASANUEVA, J. Daniel A. Toney challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion for jail credit that was filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and 3.850. We affirm and, in so doing, recede from Hill v. State, 754 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), Hall v. State, 784 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and their progeny.1 Before addressing the credit for time spent in a drug treatment facility, we review that portion of the trial court’s order denying Mr. Toney’s motion for cr…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 780 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…e for the time he spent in a residential drug treatment facility as a condition of his probation. We conclude that he is not entitled to such credit. See Pennington v. State, 398 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1981). In so holding we do not overlook Hill v. State, 754 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), but rather find that Williams was unable to overcome the hurdles posed by Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1987). Based on the facts alleged in Williams’ motion, it is apparent that he was not in “the total custody and con…
-
Tennell v. State, 787 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…o jail credit for time spent in a live-in treatment center. See Young v. State, 754 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, a defendant is entitled to credit where the live-in treatment center is the functional equivalent of jail. See Hill v. State, 754 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Tennell presented a facially sufficient claim detailing that the drug treatment center in which he was required to reside was the functional equivalent of jail. On remand, if the trial court again denies Tennell’s motion without…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)