BOBBY LEE 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 held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence must contain sufficient facts and attachments to support the claim for relief.
Bobby Lee Williams appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, which was based on Heggs v. State. The motion lacke…
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 Heggs V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bobby Lee Williams appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm without prejudice to Williams to file a facially sufficient motion.
Williams’ motion claims that he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). However, his motion contains no facts or attachments to support that he is entitled to such relief. Such a motion is facially insufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b). In addition, the trial court’s order denying Williams’ motion has no attachments to support its conclusion that Williams is not entitled to relief under Heggs.
We affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Williams to file a facially sufficient motion alleging entitlement to relief under Heggs. Should he do so and should the trial court again deny relief, the trial court must attach all documents necessary to support its conclusion. See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
PARKER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Achord v. Osceola Farms Co., 52 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…lass actions in state and in federal court. The federal court action was dismissed. Several individual claims were prosecuted through jury trials, all being resolved against the claims of the foreign workers. See, e.g., Williams v. Atl. Sugar Ass’n, 773 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Gordon v. Okeelanta Corp., 784 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Bygrave v. Sugar Cane Growers Coop., 898 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). A class action was filed on these issues against respondent but languished for sev [*701] e…
-
Murph v. State, 886 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant failed to explain the basis of his claim). A motion to correct illegal sentence that does not assert any facts or law to support a claim for relief is facially insufficient. Williams v. State, 773 So. 2d 1176, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). As to this claim, we affirm without prejudice to any right Murph may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm the denial of Murph’s remaining claims without comment. Affirmed. SALCINES and VILL…
-
Shelby Homes AT Millstone, Inc. v. Janine DaSILVA and Harold DaSilva, 983 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…on October 2, 2005, does not prevent their incorporation into the April 25, 2006 agreement. If the two documents concern the same subject matter, they may be interpreted together, even if entered into on different days. Williams v. Atl. Sugar Ass’n, 773 So. 2d 1176, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing Computer Sales Int’l, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 656 So. 2d 1382, 1384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)). Even though the revised options and extras addendum contains the handwritten statement, “Contract Dated 4-25-06 voi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)